Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1

.

New article
Hello all. I have set up this new article as a companion piece to the Prem Rawat article, to try to give a fair and neutral idea of the flavour of Prem Rawat's speeches in his long public life. The attempts I have observed elsewhere to deal with this topic, while apparently sincere, seem mostly to be based on the partially informed views of biased observers, and concentrate on the time when Prem Rawat was still a teenager. This is unfair, and I can think of no one else it would be applied to. I invite editors to improve this article in compliance with wp:blp. Rumiton 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just removed some more unsourced, opinionated and libellous ravings from Wowest, thinly disguised, as usual, as humour. This is exactly the sort of behaviour on Wikipedia that results in permanent banning. Take it as a warning or not, I don't care much. Rumiton 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wowest: these pages are not a discussion forum or a chat room. Talk pages are provided to discuss improvements to the articles in Wikipedia. You can engage in private conversations, to some extent, in your personal talk page User_talk:Wowest, or the personal talk pages of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. And comparing a living person with no record of wrongdoing to a convicted murderer is libellous. And yes, talk pages are a public place, anyone can read what is written here. To avoid causing hurt to innocent persons, any controversial opinion needs to be backed up by references to multiple reputable sources. Rumiton 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, please have Wowest blocked.Momento 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree. I get the feeling he has spent time on the kind of forum where you can say anything you like so long as it's nasty and the locals will flock to tell you how clever you are. That's the worst apprenticeship for Wikipedia work, and creates disruptive and time-wasting Wiki editors. No more of this. Rumiton 09:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User has been warned in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This page looks impressive in NPOV. Job is done nicely here. But sadly, the main page of Prem Rawat only seems to be a chronological submission of criticism. Can't something be done to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

 * Hummel
 * ''“Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen. Hatte der Vater sich vornehmlich als >>Guru der Armen<< verstanden und sich in einer bilderreichen Sprache mehr um praktische Anwendbarkeit als um theoretische Durchdringung bemüht, so blieb doch der Inhalt seiner Satsangs auf dem Hintergrund der Hinduistischen Tradition klar verständlich. Die Satsangs jedoch, die der Sohn im Westen gehalten hat und die mit einem Minimum hinduistischer Terminologie und Konzepte auskommen, müssen für den nichthinduistischen Hörer vage bleiben. Der junge Guru erklärt das konzeptionelle Denken, das auch in deutschen Übersetzungen mit dem englischen Wort >>mind<< bezeichnet wird, als Hauptfeind der unmittelbaren religösen Erfahrung. So ist es nicht verwunderlich, daβ von seinen Anhängern nur wenig Handfestes über die DLM-lehre zu erfahren ist. Andererseits eröffent ihnen der Mangel an vorgegebenen Konzepten einen Freiraum für Äuβerungen einer spontanen Subjektivität, die wohltuend vom unselbständigen Reproduzieren autoritativ verkündenter Lehren absticht, wie man es vor allem dei den Anhängern der ISKCON antrifft. Wie auch immer die Bewertung ausfallen mag - die geistige Konturlosigkeit der Bewegung fällt allen Beobachtern auf."
 * Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son, did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings. Both saw [doctrines] as presenting more problems than advantages. Although the father saw himself primarily as the Guru of the Poor, and his discourses that were rich in metaphors were more concerned with practical applications than with penetrating theory, yet his satsangs could always be understood against a background of Hindu tradition. But the satsangs that his son held in the west, which he managed with a minimum of Hindu terms and concepts, still remain vague for the non-Hindu listener. The young Guru explains that conceptual thinking, translated with the English word “mind” in German translations also, is the main enemy of direct religious experience. It is therefore hardly surprising that little firm information about DLM teachings can be obtained from his followers. On the other hand, the lack of professed concepts allows them a freedom of expression which is spontaneous and personal, and which makes an agreeable contrast with the unexamined reproduction of received teachings which one especially finds in the devotees of Iskcon. Whatever judgment one may have about the movement, its intellectual lack of contours is clear to all observers."''


 * Hunt:
 * one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher:: The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.
 * For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma. The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence.
 * Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion.


 * Geaves:
 * The teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. However, a discerning listener would have recognized the radical voice of the North Indian nirguna bhaktas, also defined as Sants, notably Nanak and Kabir, especially in the message of universalism, equality and the focus on inwardness rather than the outward forms of Hinduism.
 * Although occasionally drawing upon Indian anecdotes to use as examples for his teachings and referring to Kabir and Nanak, there is apparently little in his current idiom that could be linked to Hinduism, on the contrary, he openly challenges transmigration and the law of karma as only belief systems that cannot be verified as fact.
 * Although there are many who would assert that his authority lies in his charisma, Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.


 * Barret:
 * ''"Elan Vital has now dropped all of its original Eastern religious practices. [...] Unusually, the fact that Maharaji came from a lineage of 'Perfect Masters' is no longer relevant to the reformed movement. This is not where the authority comes from, nor the recognitin of Maharaji as the master by his student; this comes rather from the nature of the teaching and its benefit to the individual."
 * The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teachings could perhaps best described as practical mysticism.


 * Stonner and Parke
 * Guru Maharaj Ji claims to understand the key to the essence and spirit of knowledge and truth. He says he is in touch with the force of life that lurks in the inner recesses of all living things. He promises the same to those who will follow him. "He who seeks truth, finds it," the young guru tells his disciples.
 * The Divine Light Mission gives equal billing to all well-known religions and their scriptures, the Torah and all the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, and the Bhagavadgita. Perhaps because the movement originated in India it emphasizes the teachings of the Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavadgita. The God of Divine Light resembles the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe and has a plan for it.
 * Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life. "God is an omniscient power that is hidden in the secret recesses of all living things..."


 * Messer
 * His teaching consists simply of what he calls "giving knowledge," not of any extensive set of moral precepts. Unlike most Eastern religious teachers, he generally refuses to give concrete instructions regarding what one should eat, how one should make a living, or what one's disciplehood should involve. All of truth is in "the knowledge."


 * Edwards:
 * In its earlier existence Divine Light teaching derived mainly from Hinduism. Maharaj Ji, as the guru, imparted wisdom upon his followers. The guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.
 * Maharaji now teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving the use of four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies that his teachings represent instant gratification, but he sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that c an enrich an individual.


 * Prince & Riches: The New Age in Glastonbury: The Construction of Religious Movements
 * Maharaj-ji was considered to be deeply spiritually imbued, enabling him to teach secret techniques of meditation [that] were considered to heighten spiritual experience and help people realise their full potential in day-to-day living in the material world.

Will add some more later today, that could also be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * More text that could be incorporated:
 * Messer, on the aspects of "mind"
 * Westerners approaching Eastern teachers from any school are confronted with constant reiteration that the mind is the barrier to enlightenment, whether enlightenment is described as complete nothingness or as perfect bliss or as knowledge of God. Needless to say, that truth could not be accessible to the mind. Westerners are generally accustomed to identifying themselves with the boundaries of their bodies, the thoughts in their minds, and with their emotions, such as depression or ecstasy; to be told that their identity is essentially different is to be informed of nothing. Maharaj Ji's devotees claim, however, that it is possible to experience that fact, whether or not the mind is willing to acquiesce. There is no way-functionally at least-to bypass the premises of rationalism except to introduce experience where the mind says experience is not possible-that is, to provide incontrovertible evidence to which the mind has no alternative but to acquiesce. To assert that the mind cannot comprehend God is not to assert that the man cannot, if one is accustomed to that distinction; but many of us are not so accustomed, and have long asserted that God is an entity in whom one believes, an entity, that is, beyond experience.

Merge proposal
After reading this material, it seems that it would be best served if merged with Techniques of Knowledge, either under that title or under the title of this article. The reason is that I do not think that these are two different subjects. Also, I think we need information available on the basic practice of "Listening, Participation, and Practice" (formerly referred to as "Satsang, Service, Meditation in DLMs time) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes to the merge, but I suggest not until the basic article takes a more permanent shape. The only problem with S,S and M, as I see it, is that they were always means to an end, the end, again as I see it, being that individuals should be able to live in peace and dignity. TPRF is also so aligned. Rumiton 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. We can wait. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added proposals to merge. I reading both articles I can see how well these two can be merged. After the merge we will need a summary at Prem Rawat under a section named "Teachings"" as per WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "Teachings" is the better title.Momento 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the time now to merge, if everyone agrees. WP:SUMMARY looks fascinating but I don't have any time at the moment to study it, so if we go ahead some help would be appreciated. Thanks. Rumiton 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite simple: merge Techniques of Knowledge to here, redirect that article to here ( #REDIRECT Teachings of Prem Rawat ), and write a summary of this article for the main article, under a section named "Teachings". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don not think we need Glen Whitaker's comment in an article that is based on scholarly sources, in particular as it does not add anything that has not already been said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does look out of place, as well as promotional. I'll take it out tonight. Rumiton 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary needed
A summary of this article needs to be added in a new section to the Prem Rawat article as per WP:SS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection needed
Andries latest edit in which he deliberately distorts a quote to push his POV is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did no think that I distorted a quote and certainly did not do it deliberately. Andries (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I quoted Melton verbatim to avoid disputes about interpretation of the quote. How do you think that I distorted a quote? I do not see it. What is your proposed summary of the quote? Andries (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all there in black and white Andries. You deliberately changed Melton's source comment from "embodiment of God" to "God". It's deliberate, it's inaccurate and it's typical of your campaign of POV pushing.Momento (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did not notice that and I think the difference is very subtle if not non-existent. Andries (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume bad faith for such inaccuracies that I think are very minor. Andries (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that asking to assume good faith in your case, may be stretch: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, which in your case there is plenty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I may miss somethihg but when a person says "I am God" or "I am the embodiment of God" then the difference is not clear for me. This is not the first time that Momento has accused me of bad faith when I think I only made minor inaccuracies at worst such as confusion of "Lord of the Universe" with "God." Andries (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Minor" Andries? Your "minor" inaccuracy completely distorts a major aspect of Rawat's teachings. And you do it time and time again. And in this case, you lied on this talk page about it. You claimed above, in response to my challenge, that you "quoted Melton verbatim". You did not. If you do not stop your continual vandalism of Rawat articles I am going to push for you to be permanently banned.Momento (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did quote Melton verbatim. Feel free to explain the difference on my talk page because I still do not see it. Andries (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you write this Andries, it has your signature after it - Okay, I did not notice that and I think the difference is very subtle if not non-existent . So here you are admitting that your quote was different, not verbatim. . Since you cannot tell the difference between a "verbatim" copy and "grossly distorted" one, I will revert any inaccurate or biased POV editing you do to Rawat articles without further discussion.Good bye Andries.Momento (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May be you could take the effort explain me then I will learn something. I really do not understand your complaints and concerns. Andries (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are quoting Melton, we need to quote Downton, Chryssides, Hunt, and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer to summarize Melton, but there was a dispute about the interpretation of the quote. So if we can agree how to summarize Melton then this is fine for me. Andries (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: "The religious scholar Melton wrote in 1986 that Rawat, in accordance with the Sant Mat tradition, claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth."
 * Andries (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Encouragament to surrender to the guru
Can somebody please add that Rawat encouraged surrender to the guru? There are several scolarly sources for that and it was a notable aspect of Rawat's teachings. It is missing now. See User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat Andries (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sants digression
This article should not digress on the Sants, but on Rawat's teachings and may be on the relation that rawat had to the Sants. Momento keeps on altering what Melton wrote significantly. Andries (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Melton says "that Rawat, in accordance with the Sant Mat tradition, claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth". It is an exceptional claim and needs further sources. However, other scholars suggests Sants consider Perfect Masters "an embodiment of God on earth" and it can therefore be included. Once again, your desire to push your POV sees you cross the line of Wiki policy. Reverted.Momento (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an exceptional claim that Rawat made this claim. And kranenborg and Hummel wrote something similar. Andries (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar isn't enough.Momento (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think that Melton made an exceptional claim when there are two other scholars who made similar statements. Andries (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Similar" isn't the same as "same". You need another scholar who says "Rawat claimed to be an embodiment of God on earth". And you won't find one because he never said it.Momento (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will file a request for comments. Andries (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)\
 * Please take into account that most sources upon careful reading treat the beliefs and practices of the followers, Elan Vital or the Divine Light Mission: there are only few sources that treat what Rawat has said. To remove sourced statements that explicitly treat what Rawat said does not help this entry. Andries (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Following your way of reasoning, statements by scholars can only be included if two scholars say exactly the same thing, in other words if they committed plagiarism. That is absurd. Andries (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of published talks given by Rawat on his or his organizations websites and they are suitable. I'll start putting them in.Momento (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is primary source material that belongs in Wikiquote, instead scholarly summaries of his teachings are fine. We do not have another quote war with many contradicting statements by Rawat in the article as we have seen in the past.Andries (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Generalizations made to only one scholarly source should be explicitly atributed to this scholarly source. They should not presented as facts. Andries (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Melton may have a definition about Perfect Master but here's Rawat's definition - "Some people may think that okay, when we say Perfect Master,we’re talking about God, or we’re talking about prophet, or we’re talking about something like that. But really, in laymen’s term, to explain it, is that if somebody is a flight instructor, you would call them a flight instructor, or a flight teacher, or one who teaches about airplanes. If one was a professor of maths, he had mastered it, then you would call him teacher in maths, or instructor in maths [. . .] the definition of a Perfect Master is the one who can give us the perfectness, one who can teach us the perfectness". October 4, 1981 Interview by John Young . Momento (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC
 * that is no excuse to delete a statement that is sourced to FOUR SCHOLARLY SOURCES. HOW MANY SCHOLARS DO YOU NEED BEFORE A STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE CAN STAY IN? Andries (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're shouting, I'm going to go through this issue one more time - ^ Melton, J. Gordon Maharaj Ji, says "Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master" which is correct. Melton's description of a Perfect Master is his not Rawat's. Kranenborg, Reender ridiculous ramble uses weasel word "seems" about the "statements by Maharaj Ji about himself and his vocation seem to go further without providing us with a statement and claims ONLY that Rawat becomes steadily more aware how great his divinity is." without saying Rawat claims it. Hummel is in Dutch so who knows what he says. Dr. Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks claim only what followers believe and "His (Rawat's) request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness" and "godliness "means "devoutness or piousness" not "divine". Perhaps you should refrain from editing until your english improves. I'm not going to waste anymore time.Momento (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If your personal opinions differ from what scholarly sources state then sorry, you have bad luck. I admit that the scholars do not exactly say the same, but my summary that rawat made claims of divinity is an accurate summary. Andries (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your summary!!!! None of the above quotes say Rawat made claims of divinity. Claimed to be a Perfect Master, yes; but that's it.Momento (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Claiming to be an embodiment of God is a special case of making claims of divinity. Andries (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Melton, Rawat claimed to be a Perfect Master. Everything after that is Melton's erroneous description of a Perfect Master and not a part of what Rawat claimed. Your knowledge of english is very limited.Momento (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretations of what Melton wrote. We can quote Melton literlally to enable the reader to make up his own mind about what Melton wrote. Andries (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way you can quote one scholar to suit your POV. That's why it's an exceptional claim.Momento (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To suit my POV? If you are right about Melton then it it does not suit my POV. I am only saying that if there a disagreement about interpretation of a quote then the obvious solution is to quote it in the article to enable the reader to decided what the quote means. In this way, Melton will suit your POV if the reader thinks that you are right. Andries (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again your poor English fails you. I didn't say that Melton's badly expressed claim suits your POV, I said you cannot quote one scholar to suit your POV. Of all things written about Rawat, including the scholarly quotes on this page, you want to insert one disputed sentence from a biased source because it suits your POV.Momento (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the way to solve the dispute is to quote the sentence and let the reader decide what the disputed sentence means. 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs)
 * How about I put in Hunt - "Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion". Or Edwards "The guru taught that humanity is inherently divine". Or Stonner and Park "The God of Divine Light resembles the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe and has a plan for it. Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life".etc. etc. Momento (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine but you should mention the year. Andries (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress
Tidying up and adding more material.Momento (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great job! One small point, though -- Teaching the Techniques is looking a bit promotional to my eye. Might need some encyclopedification? Rumiton (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still a long way to go.Momento (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Put in some more scholars but am wondering whether putting in slabs of quotes is right? Should we synthesize in our own words.Momento (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Synthesizing/summarizing is always better, Momento. You can put the full quotation in the notes, if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee that was quick. Also thinking that we should change "Westernization" to "Teachings" and expand.Momento (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC dispute about inclusion of claims of divinity by Prem Rawat
Should claims of divinity by Prem Rawat if properly attributed and dated go into the article? See e.g. Andries (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) For example, is it okay to write that the religious scholar Melton wrote in 1986 that Prem Rawat claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth? Andries (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An RfC without discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * did you read the talk page? Andries (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? : That material is already in the article: See Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it, to summarize my objections that I had made several times on various talk pages, I think Melton's words are so much toned down and changed that they can hardly be recognized. Andries (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think your habit on various talk pages of making objections and asking questions without proper reading is wasting a lot of my time. See Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat Andries (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)-


 * As you can see from previous discussions Andries' incomplete grasp of English is a source of constant confusion for him. What Melton actually writes is "Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Melton is saying that Rawat "claims to be a Perfect Master", this is true. Melton is not claiming Rawat claims to be "an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration". Rather Melton is adding his (Melton's) description of a Sant Mat Perfect Master. In Indian culture, a person without a guru or a teacher (acharya) was once looked down on as an orphan or unfortunate one. A guru also gives diksha initiation which is the spiritual awakening of the disciple by the grace of the guru. Diksha is also considered to be the procedure of bestowing the divine powers of a guru upon the disciple, through which the disciple progresses continuously along the path to divinity. All gurus have "divine" powers, that's why they're gurus.Momento (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why not quote Melton and let the reader decide what Melton meant? Andries (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Melton is quoted - "Sants believe that the Guru or Perfect Master is an embodiment of God and a fitting object of worship."Momento (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Melton did not write that. Andries (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The following except is important to show that what Melton wrote was more or less in correspondenc with what other scholars (Jan van der Lans and Derks)wrote
 * "DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness."
 * Andries (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly obvious that the Guru presented himself as an incarnation of God. In fact, he claimed to be greater than Jesus or Buddha, coming with -- what was it? all 32 powers? Curiously, when he talked about himself as God, he always did it in the third person, as far as I can ascertain. Wowest (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

History
The lines "The website "Maharaji.org" (1999) included the traceable lineage of "Masters" who Prem Rawat claims taught the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, beginning with Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji and his father Hans Ji Maharaj. " are not able to be verified. The website referred to does not have this information on it. It may have once, but it is unverifiable now. Thus, it is no longer appropriate to have the link, nor the information that the link supposedly verified. Armeisen (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it can we accessed by the internet way back machine. Nothing is ever lost. The link may need to be refreshed.Momento (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance
I just added some documented quotations from dissatisfied former consumers of Rawat's product. Wowest (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with your edit Janice. patrick needs to be summarized, not quoted at length.Momento (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. Long quotations from testimony obtained after deprogramming is a bit much to be in the lede. I just condensed them and moved them out of there. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Source
This is a source published in 2001, that could be used in this article:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To which he alone holds the keys?
Please provide a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Soruce is in main texst of the article i.e. Price Maeve. Andries (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have only one source that says that, we need to attribute it to Price, and move it out of the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Haan says more or less the same i.e. that Knowledge has according to member of the DLM no value without the guru. I will add that as a sources. Andries (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Melton says more or less the same too
 * "At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj.."
 * from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1986;
 * Andries (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? What is notable about this? All "initiations" are performed by a guru or a person endowed to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that initiation is necessary and that only Rawat or his direct representative is authorized is remarkable when the meditation techniques could as well be printed on a leaflet. Andries (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the same applies to the wine and bread of Mass? Confession?Momento (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you now validating the obvious fact that Prem Rawat's "teachings" do constitute a religion? Belief #1: We have no beliefs. Belief #2 The mind is demonic. Belief #3 Guru Maharaj Ji is the highest manifestation of God on the planet. Belief #4 There is only one sat guru on the planet at a time. Belief #5 Give your all to Sat Guru.... Be united with the blissful truth? Wowest (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, Andries, but I am strongly challenging this point on the Prem Rawat page. Msalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on your side Msalt. I have had these arguments with Andries and I think it's caused by a glitch in the translation of Dutch and English.Momento (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither Price nor Melton is in Dutch. Andries (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Andries, I'm referring to the differences in my understanding of English and Dutch and yours.Momento (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's guru...
Wouldn't it be more complete and accurate to say, "Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's father and guru,..."? It seems odd to omit that they are father and son. Likewise, later on we say, It would seem clearer to identify the father and teacher by name, "Prem Rawat became a guru and titular head of the Divine Light Mission at the age of 8 upon the death of Hans Ji Maharaj in 1966..." Otherwise it gets a bit confusing that this is the same person as referenced above. Thirdly, it goes on to say, Again, it would be clearer to say "like his father" if we've already established that his father was his teacher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's guru,... 
 * Prem Rawat became a guru and titular head of the Divine Light Mission at the age of 8 upon the death of his father and teacher in 1966...
 * Like his teacher, he was called Guru Maharaj Ji,and he taught in India in much the same manner as his teacher whilst attending school in Dehra Dun. 
 * Sounds good, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Geaves
According to his WP bio, Ron Geaves was one of the earliest western followers of Prem Rawat. This article identifies him simply as a scholar. It would be more appropriate to insert a parenthetical explanation, such as "...a longtime follower of Rawat..." followng his name in order to clarify the relationship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not identify Geaves as a scholar. Actually no one some of the other sources is identified as per their title or expertise. We could describe them if necessary, and apply same standard to all sources if that would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The heading is "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars", so all of the commentators are described as "scholars". If some of the people aren't scholars we should drop the word, but regardless of that we should identify Geave's association with the subject.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The section title should be changed IMO to "Descriptions of Knowledge". As for the titles and affiliations of the notable individuals used as sources, we can add these if it would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the Ron Geaves article includes full disclosure of his affiliation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are some of the the commentators not scholars? If so I agree that we should remove the word. As for Geaves' affiliation, I think it's obviously useful knowledge in this context. If no one objects I'll add it with a source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Barret, who is an author, and we have Ted Patrick who is not a scholar or an author. As for Geaves, you can add Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England and former Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester, who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat, wrote that.... Or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<< Also, it may be useful to use quotes: Descriptions of "Knowledge". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That description of Geaves seems a bit long - I don't think we need to describe his former positions in this article. Since some of the comments are on Rawat's teachings in general I think we should omit "Knowledge" from the heading, as that makes it appear that they only address the one aspect. Perhaps the best heading would be something like "Critical response" ("critical" in the broad sense of the word). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we can do away with the former title. As for the section title, maybe best would be just conflate it with the previous section, or just call it "Techniques" or "Practices" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection it may make more sense to change the heading to "Outside views" and move the Greaves and Whitaker comments to another section, like the "Teachings" section. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? I do not see the point. Care to explain?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you point out - the people aren't all "scholars". With the exception of Geaves they are all "outsiders". So that seems like an accurate term that can be applied with minimal adjustment. I'm not sure why the Whitaker comment was deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I would prefer just calling the section "Practices". I have not seen the use of "Outside views" in comparable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which comparable articles are you thinking of? The section appears to be composed of comments by various people covering the entire teachings. "Practices" would imply that it is a section discussing meditation techniques, rituals, etc. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can then either conflate that section into "Teachings", or create a section called "Practices" in which only the meditation techniques are covered. Either one will work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and think that renaming it "outside views" and moving out the insider is less disruptive. However thanks for the input. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can agree to disagree, then. Maybe time to ask for an WP:RFC on this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An RfC over a section heading? That hardly seems necessary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Then let's find a compromise. I am sure we can do that, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've come a long way from the orignal title. What's your objection to "outside views"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about this for a compromise:
 * Move the 3rd and the 6th paragraph to the "Teaching section"
 * Rename "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars" to "Reception"
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your objeciton to "ouside views"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is based on the fact that it is an unusual way to do it. I found it used in only one article: Melek Taus; What is your objection to "Reception"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear unusual to me. How many articles have "reception" sections? "Outside views" correctly describes the material in the section, once paragraphs 3 and 6 are moved. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Outside view" is a completely loaded heading which suggests some sort of "closed community" to which outsiders don't have access. How did Ted Patrick get here - In 1980 he was convicted of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and false imprisonment of Roberta McElfish in San Diego and sentenced to one year in prison. On 11 June 1984 Scientologist Paula Dain was awarded $7,000 in compensatory damages by a federal court jury in a $30 million civil-rights lawsuit against Patrick. The jury ruled that Patrick had violated Dain's civil rights and freedom of religion, but determined that Patrick did not act "with evil intent" or in "reckless and callous disregard for Miss Dain's safety."Momento (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a closed community. "People with knowledge" receive a special "smartcard" to designate them as insiders. As for Patrick, his notability as a commentator on new religious movements is not in question - anyway, that's a separate topic and let's stick to the heading for this section. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Smartcards are not necessary to receive Knowledge or required after Knowledge. They are a device to allow easy access to events that are for people who have received Knowledge. The same as a travel, student, business or security cards allow special access. The use of a card doesn't make non travelers or students "outsiders".Momento (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all of that, the views of people who aren't followers (i.e. the outside world) are worth a section. This discussion is just about how to title that section. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Will, what is going on? Is this an issue related to a section name, or is this a substantial content dispute of how to frame sources for best effect. If it is the former, let's find a suitable compromise (and if the one I have proposed does not work for you, propose an alternative one); and if it is the latter, let us ask others via WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * SO far as I'm concerned this is a discussion about where to include Geaves, and how to label a section. You dismissed "Outside views" as a title becuase it's "unusual" and propsoed "Reception" instead. I asked how common "Reception" is for a section heading. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reception" sections are quite common, Will. Have you never come across these? Some examples: Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour, The Joy of Sect, the very main article, and hundreds of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this article is comparable to "The Joy of Sect". If we use "reception" it should be broadened to cover reception in the mainstream media as well. If there are no objections to including the popular reception of the teachings then that heading may be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, what is going on? I am getting an uneasy feeling in this discussion. I have emailed you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in this discussion that should make an editor feel uneasy. If the section is titled "reception" then it should include the overall reception of the teaching of the subject, as the name would imply. I don't think that's odd. What do you think should be in a section titled "reception"? What's in The Joy of Sect? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you Jossi. I think Will is trying to change this article from "Teachings of Rawat" to "Anyone's opinions of the Teachings of Rawat. and angling to give the ex-premies a section.Momento (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reception" is another editor's suggestion. If you're opposed to that title then say so. However whatever the title it should include all significant viewpoints containedin reliable sources presented with the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a breakthrough proposal, why don't we remove Barret and Patrick and rely on "scholars".Momento (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars are not the only ones who have significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It we don't set a standard for inclusion somewhere, this article will be overwhelmed with the opinions of Rawat's students.Momento (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The standards are determined by existing WP policies. We don't need to create special standards for this article. We already have at least one of Rawat's students quoted in the article: Geaves. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were following Wiki standards Ted Patrick wouldn't be in. WP:VER says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves". Sounds like TP's book to me.Momento (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the discussion of the inclusion of Patrick to anothe discussion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well what would you like to talk about? It is only the addition of Patrick that necessitates any changing of the headline.Momento (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a solution that would cover all the suggestions, I believe. Leave Greave where he is, identify him as a follower. Move paragraph six up to "Teachings". Make a new over-heading of "Reception". Retitle the existing the "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars" to "Scholars" as a subheading. Create a new subheading "Others" and move Patrick and Barrett there, along with any other non-scholars we find. How does that sound?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That could work. Give it a try to check how that would look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Momento object? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection. We can always go back if it doesn't work. By far the most significant reception was provided by the 10s of thousands of "others" that became devotees.Momento (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding devotees: like all viewpoints those that are available in reliable sources and are significant are welcome. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim as a Source
Just looked at "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6. Nothing supports the text in the article.Momento (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking it out as a source unless someone can show me what they say about the text in the article.Momento (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's on page 159, but Amazon preview shows that the teaching of Prem Rawat are discussed on page 176.
 * As one ex-member explained the differences to us, the similarities also became apparent. "The meditation Maharaj Ji was teaching involved intensity, not depth."
 * Page 67 contains a discussion of deprogramming a follower. It may be a simple error in the page numbering, or perhaps a differnt edition of the book.    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is actually on page 176, and it describes the opinion of an unnamed ex-follower about the "meditation", and his experience after "deprogramming" (the "deprogramming", whatever it was, was not described). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: Page 67 describes a "deprogramming" by Ted Patrick. I think this book was published before Patrick convictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change was first published in 1978, and Patrick was first convicted and sentenced to one year in prison in 1980 for kidnapping and false imprisonment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This perfectly illustrates "cherry picking" quotes. Page 67 of the 1995 version has nothing that supports the text. We might just as well put in - "most people we spoke with fought desperately to preserve their blissed-out states". Page 176 - says "diminishing the ability to think" but says nothing about "self hypnosis". But we might also insert from page 176 - "one practitioner reported meditation gave a certain absence of feeling...when I had doubts, guilt or other uncomfortable emotions, I would react by meditating".Momento (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've ordered the book and will be able to check the text in a few days. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can get all the text via Amazon search . I missed page 176 because I searched for "guru" + "maharaj" + "ji" and "guru" doesn't appear on page 176.Momento (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Divine Light Mission apparently brings up some pages pages that may not mention the guru either. Regarding the citation, is there no footnote on page 159? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 159? There is nothing related there. If what you meant was page 176, there are no footnotes in that page. Neither there are in page 67, the two places in wich "Maharaj ji" is mentioned. There are mentions of "Divine Light Mission" on pages 131-2 and 192, and some other passing comments in pages 189 and 194. No footnotes in any of these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't have the book in front of me. I will in a few days. Which edition do you have?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Second edition, 1995.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Google didn't show up when I checked before, but here it is now - the 1995 edition.[ISBN 0964765004] It shows that the info from page 67 in the 2005 (Amazon) edition is on page 59 in the 1995 edition.  It appears possible that the "pp 159" in the citation may be a typo for "pp 59".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento's comments, above, from April 5th, are a bit disingenuous. The "confusion" was caused by a SYNTH by Janice Rowe, which combines criticism from two different consumers of Rawat's meditation instruction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=194359968&oldid=194343912 .
 * This criticism, documented in two different books by two different sets of authors has been combined by Janice into one sentence, in an apparent effort to make criticism of Rawat less visible. However, this increases the generally agreed-upon problem that there is not nearly enough criticism of Rawat when compared to various public figures who are far less controversial. Momento's subsequent proposal to summarize the second testimony is, of course, too condensed as well. The issue of self-hypnosis is brought up by former premie/housemother Marcia Carroll in "Let our Children Go." Wowest (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit does appear to have removed sourced information, and with no explanation. Does anyone object to restoring the deleted info? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. -- I have the book in front of me
Stillpoint press second edition, second printing, April,2005 . Page 159, about 2/3 of the way down the page... . Doing a search on the name "Barry Robertson" on Amazon, you find the exact same material on pages 176-177. Apparently, that was from the first printing. The second printing uses smaller type and is a few pages shorter, but claims to contain the same material. Whomever is being quoted seems to have experienced both some temporary or permanent impact on his/her ability to experience emotions and on his/her general cognitive ability as well. Wowest (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To which he alone holds the keys
This is not supported by the footnote, which states that "premies believe" this, among other things. It does not say Prem Rawat says this (and indeed he doesn't.) I shall remove tomorrow in the absence of objections. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think that you are mistaken. Andries (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what the source says: "Price, Maeve in Sociological Review The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization nr. 27, 1979 pp. 279–96
 * "Essentially, premies believe that the key to understanding themselves, the gateway to happiness, love and that peace of mind 'which surpasseth understanding' lies in meditating on the knowledge of Guru Maharaj Ji, and that this knowledge is there inside each human being. Only Maharaj Ji has the key to it and only his appointed mahatmas or initiators may give Maharaj Ji's knowledge. This crucial fact that knowledge may only be revealed by Maharaj Ji legitimates the leader's supremacy to the believers and ensures that seekers achieve these benefits from a single source."
 * Andries (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Living Perfect Master of our Time, Shri Guru Maharaj Ji," didn't say that he was the exclusive local authorized representative of the creator of the universe? Gee. Someone should have told Mahatma Parlokanand prior to 1973, when he was preaching that. Well, no, actually it was that Shri Guru Maharaj WAS the Lord of the Universe -- the boss of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. My fault. Wrong cult.


 * Apart from that, though, Rumiton, you usually come across as being more nearly sane than Jossi or, more particularly, Momento. This "I don't like it so I'm gonna delete it" stuff sounds more like his style. Or is this just a role he plays? Are you taking over his duties, now? Good premie/bad premie? The cops usually switch roles when they think the suspect is about to crack. Is one of us about to crack?
 * Wowest (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not funny, Wowest, and I would hope that you desist from making such comments in the future. Remember that remaining civil and not engaging in personal attacks are not optional. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, there you are, Joseph. Hi! :-) Didn't you just promise the mediators that you wouldn't edit articles related to Prem Rawat, and then turn right around and add some hard-to-trace negatives to the article about the book Snapping while the meditation is still going on?
 * Wowest (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat
In spite of the many sources that treat the Divine Light Mission only few exist, upon careful reading of the sources, that treat the teachings of Prem Rawat. I only found one source by Reender Kranenborg that treats the teachings of Rawat as distinguished from the Divine Light Mission with any length and depth. Hence I think that this is a dead-end article. I propose merging it back to Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a spin-off article from the main article Prem Rawat. See WP:SUMMARY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know that. Please state your point. Andries (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no need to merge. This article stands on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Regarding DLM, I had planned to propose a merge between that article and Elan Vital, since they are the same organization. I think that would help the sourcing issue. Some of this material may be better placed there, but I'd prefer to wait until the merge is completed before thinking about re-organizng them further. There is currently a proposed merger of Criticism of Prem Rawat to Prem Rawat. Some of that material may be better placed in this article. For those reasons I think that the mergers proposed above are not suitable at this time. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They are not really the same organisation. Though EV was created from DLM by entity name change, at the same time an entirely new approach was begun. DLM was a vast thing inherited from India, with hundreds of employees who organised instructors, placed advertising and ran ashrams. EV has had to do none of that. It is a minimal organisation with no members and few staff. Organisation is done by local communities and decisions are now made there. I cannot see that merging the two articles will lead to clarity on this subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you see that your opinion on what leads to "clarity" depends upon your opinion as to what is true? You do come across as the most level-headed current premie editor, by the way. Can you consider the possibility that someone else, with a different opinion regarding what is true or real, might view your selection of facts as hiding the truth, perhaps in ways that could be dangerous or harmful to some third party? Is it not your opinion that "the light" is God and that "the real name of God" is God? Is it not your belief that you have no beliefs, but that you merely describe your own experience? Why do you suppose that so many people disagree with such noble-sounding concepts? Wowest (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that if I believed there was some harmful secret purpose behind all these Prem Rawat related organisations, then watching their quite boring development get documented would frustrate the hell out of me. I would be saying "Look at the harmful secret purpose, not the outside appearances!" Is that what you mean? Maybe it all comes down to "What is Knowledge?" You clearly have found not much good and maybe some harm in it. That has not been my experience. I have found the meditation to be valuable and helpful, sometimes even a life-saver. I don't think about God much, it just isn't an idea I find helpful. In fact, it seems that getting religious ideas tangled up with Knowledge has been disastrous for everyone who did it. Knowledge is not for everyone, it can't be practised by grim determination or out of a sense of religious duty, but it is a great thing for people like me, who have a thirst for it. For me, Prem Rawat is a friend and an encourager. Those who don't have that specific thirst will probably not get as far as the Knowledge Session, but if they do will be able to recognise that it isn't for them and leave without anger or malice. I know it wasn't that clear in the 70s, but it is now. This won't make any sense to some people, it will seem like there has to be a hidden bear trap and will spend a lot of time and effort looking for it. To me, it isn't there. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to merge Rawat with DLM an organization he did not control half its existence.Momento (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi
James Randi describes Prem Rawat's teaching in his Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. He says: I think that he is a notable commentator, and that we should add that his view that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * “Receiving the knowledge” turned out to be a process of seeing “heavenly lights” when pressing on the eyeballs, hearing “blissful music” when the ears were stopped up, tasting “divine nectar” when the head was thrown back with the tongue turned inward, and receiving a mantra nonsense word. The sensory illusions were quite natural and easily understood physiological phenomena, the “nectar” being simply nasal secretions dripping into the throat. Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret. The big promise fizzled..
 * nasal secretions dripping into the throat. Yuck! Given that we have three or four scholars' descriptions, do we really need this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which existing sources express the view that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret"? I propose adding something like: Sceptic James Randi has written that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." Any objections?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I am not sure. A stage magician and skeptic's viewpoint is that significant? What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the text in the link provided, and it seem a pretty strange article, full of factual mistakes, reading more like an op-ed than anything else. I would be interested to know what other editors think about this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're attributing it to his opinion being "op-ed"-like is not a problem. He is undoubtedly a notable commentator. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is full of factual inaccuracies, such as Glastonbury was in 1971 and not 1981, the lawsuit, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Help me out here, Will. Don't you think that without providing context to the tone, style, and mistakes in that piece, that simply extracting a tidbit is a pretty bad way to add this to the article? Let's hear what others have to say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What context would you like to add? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi is completely unsuitable as a source. There are far more reliable sources that contradict him. I could add 20,000k of more accurate material.Momento (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi is a suitable source for his own opinion, which is noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt Randi is a "suitable source for his own opinion", so presumably Rawat is a suitable source for his own opinion. I'll get some to add to this article. Would that also apply to Collier, Geaves, Downton, Messer and Galanter etc. because they haven't been quoted so far?Momento (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So far I haven't seen a good reason to exclude this material. Are there any? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would exclude Randi on the grounds of common sense. It seems a bit desperate to have to resort to use an entertainer as a source for this article. Am I right to presume you have no objection to adding material from the others sources I mentioned?Momento (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's address this issue before we go on to others.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is needed to frame this as a tit for tat, Momento. Let's wait for other editors' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you said the material needs context. What context would you like to see for this material? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well just for the record I strongly object to using Randi as a source. His material is so full of bias and errors, he cannot be considered a reliable source.Momento (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, as an admin I ask you to carefully check out WP:BLP and WP:RS to get clear on this important point. The word "notable" applies to people and things that are being considered as 'subjects' of Wikipedia articles. It does not apply to 'sources', which must be 'reputable', not 'notable'. As an illustration, Geoffrey Dahmer is notable, but not reputable. So is James Randi. Rumiton (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Techniques of Knowledge are covered by WP:BLP? I think that's quite a stretch. A form of meditation is not a living person. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The author has won a number of prestigious awards for his work. The book is published by a respected publishing house, qualifies as a "reliable source", and is used as a source in hundreds of WP articles. To address Momento's concern about using a long quote, I propose a compromise: Sceptic James Randi has written that only "the very naive" believe the meditation techniques are "some sort of cosmic secret". Better? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Put it in by all means, no one can stop you.Momento (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no policy-based objection, I'll do so. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Randi certainly appears to be a far more notable person commentator than Sophia Collier. What is her expertise? What awards has she won? Should we use a soda entrepreneur as a source? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're just adding large quotes maybe it would be more helpful to readers if we quote the whole paragraph from Randi. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. This article is called "Teachings of Prem Rawat." Of course it is a biography! Randi is not a reputable source. Out it comes. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi is indeed a reputable and reliable source. You havebn't given any policy that says an award-winning researcher, writing in a book published by a major publisher, is unrelaible or unsuitable as a source. It was inappropriate of you to remove the quotation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is and has been that Randi has no encyclopedic relevance in this context. He is not a religious scholar, and, unlike Collier, he is not, to my knowledge, quoted by reputable sources covering this topic. In addition, his piece is a slipshod affair that falls far short of the best standards of research. Randi is part of a wider societal conflict between the world views of religion and science, and may be of relevance to discourse in that field. Jayen 466 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, re the nasal secretions, Rawat did not invent the method. It is a traditional yogic technique. See Khecarī mudrā. Jayen 466 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this meditation technique pre-dates Prem Rawat, and Randi's comments about it are not comments about Prem Rawat. Therefore the BLP argument doesn't apply. However this material is proposed for the "reception" section. This is what a noteworthy person thinks about the technique. We don't have to quote the whole passge. Again I propose: Sceptic James Randi  has written that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." That's clearly his opinion, which is notable.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I will have to disagree, unless you find a way to indicate that Randi's writing on the subject is full of factual inaccuracies that are easily verifiable. That or omit the source all together. I am serious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Could you make your point at the RS/N thread? Many of the contributors there seem to think it's a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I already made my point there, but you keep missing the main issue. You ask many questions, so let me ask one of you: Why are you not proposing Randi as source for a 1981 appearance at the Glastonbury festival? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the same reason we don't use Melton as a source for the spelling of "Mishner"'s name. Typos and similar errors happen when writing books. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we are not talking about just one mistake, but several, in a piece with just a couple of paragraphs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make your arguments at RS/N. The consensus of uninvolved editors there appears to be that the material is reliable and noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Watts
Will, please read this. We had decided that this cherry picked quote is inappropriate.Momento (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Most of that discussion appears to be over whether it's actually a criticism and whether it belongs in a biography of a living person. This article is not a biography and the quote is not described as criticism. The New York Times is a reliable source. While I can see that there may have been reasons to leave it out of that article, those reasons don't appear to apply here to this use. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No the discussion is whether someone who doesn't know Watts would understand what he means. Can you provide the article from which this is taken? .Momento (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That topic was also discussed. I don't see that as an issue. Readers can follow the link to learn more about Watts. We don't usually exclude information because we doubt readers' ability to understand.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isolating a quote out of the context that gives the quote a different meaning is deceptive. At the least you need to say the NY Times reporter says that Watts said.....Momento (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was it deleted? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because its inclusion seemed to be under the mistaken impression that this was not part of a living biography. That clearly needs discussion. BLP articles need to be meticulously sourced, there must be no ambiguity. Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The biogrpahy is at Prem Rawat. There's no policy which allows sourced material to be deleted an editor thinks the text may be ambiguous. Alan Watts is highly noteworthy commentator on Eastern-derived spiritual movements, and was even an early supporter of Rawat. If you don't like the quote then please replace it with a summary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe an article called Teachings of Prem Rawat is a part of the Wikipedia biography of Prem Rawat, then I cannot work further with you. The next step is to file a Request for Comment. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, what "ambiguity" requires the deletion of the quotation? Shall we delete all quotations that are ambiguous? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In a BLP, yes. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, again, what is the ambiguity? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There must or should be a Wikipedia policy for editors being wilfully obtuse. Watts was almost certainly paying a compliment. The bald statement here makes it look like a severe criticism. Since he died shortly after saying it, we can't ask him what he meant. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a compliment then you shouldn't have deleted it. If it's a criticism you shouldn't have deleted it. Either way it's a relavent quotation by a noteworthy commentator. If you can't come up with a better reason I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can come up with a terrific reason. The intention of the author, whether praiseful or insulting, is paramount. If we don't know exactly what his intention was, we should not be quoting him. Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We do know what Watts' intention was. He meant it as praise, and it is consistent with his use of the word "ignorance" in his own writings, where he posited it as a positive virtue. Alan Watts contributed funds to Rawat's fare from India to the U.S. This is not compatible with the assumption that he thought of Rawat as an ignorant irrelevance. Jayen 466 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? We don't know the intentions of any of the other writers and scholars either, and I'm not about to call them up to ask. There's no prohibtion on using dead people as sources even if we can't call them up. I don't think that Watts was being either critical or complimentary: he was being descriptive. Different belief systems work in different ways and he was describing this belief system as employing a "doctrine of sacred ignorance". Anyway, he's a noteworthy person reported in the nation's leading newspaper. The fact that some editors on Wikipedia can't figure out what he means is not sufficient reason to exclude it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My God, you are still talking about "noteworthy persons" as sources. They have to be 'reputable, reputable, reputable'! Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you're not saying that Alan Watts is a disreputable source. I'm sure he has his detractors but I've always thought he was widely respected in his field.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watts is certainly reputable. What did he mean by that statement? We don't know. We leave it out. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, so he's reputable and he's reported in a reliable source. His opinion is noteworthy. He describes the doctrine as being one of sacred ignorance. What part of that don't you understand? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an oxymoron "used intentionally for rhetorical effect." He is using the contradictory terms "sacred" and "ignorance" poetically, in a novel and thought-provoking way, not intended to be taken literally or to be read in isolation from the context. Applying intelligence to the choice of quotes is not in acting in disobedience with any Wikipedia policy. It's late here. Good night. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't undersand Watts. From what I know of Rawat's teachings, he says that the source of evil is the mind. Spritual progress comes from going to a place that is free from the harmful results of too much thinking.
 * Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, what do you mean about the mind being evil? Answer: This mind is jiggling around trying to find out that perfectness. It is inquiring, trying to investigate the perfectness, which is impossible. To the mind, God is a perfect criminal. He has done such a perfect crime by creating this world that mind cannot trace how He did it. That is why the mind always freaks out about God.
 * A place free of thinking may be called "ignorance". Contrast it with spiritual movements that value thinking, such as Zen Buddhism or some strains of Hinduism. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Will, I think you are simply mis-informed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "A place free of thinking may be called "ignorance"." Do you really think peace of mind equates to ignorance? Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< What happened to good and sound editorial judgment? Policies and guidelines have to be respected, but not at the expense of sound editorial judgment. We still have WP:IAR, thank goodness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be "sound editorial judgment". It appears to me to be skewing the results. Watts is more reputable than Collier. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watts is reputable and his opinion is interesting but we're not quoting Watts, we're quoting what some reporter said Watts said. And we know that Watts comment taken in isolation is ambiguous and therefore may distort Watts' view. The solution is to go directly to Watts and see what he said, in what context.Momento (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's absurd to argue, with no proof whatsoever, that a quotation in the New York Times is inaccurate. Momento, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard. So ridiculous that it qualifies as tendentious editing. If that is the position you're taking on this matter I'm going to file a complaint.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, have you read the previous discussion about Watts? It may be useful if you do. I do not think this qualifies as WP:TE, the argument is a solid one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which argument? The argument you are making is that it's "good editorial judgment" to delete a comment on this doctrine by a famous student of Eastern religions reported in a highly reliable source. That doesn't appear solid to me. Momento's argument is just plain ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, please read the previous discussion on the subject. Good editorial judgment is to not to mislead readers with a quote that is inherently positive as it was a highly negative one. Are you familiar with Watts work? If not, you can ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been slightly familiar with Watts all of my life. He's pretty famous. I read one of his books but mostly I've heard his lectures. I'm not sure why'd we prefer to quote Sophia Collier instead of Alan Watts. I don't think that Watts is either criticizing or complimenting this form of meditation; he's just describing it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, as I said above, until someone shows me the original Watts work, lecture or interview that the NYT quoted from, and unless that contains clear evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that Watts' comment was some kind of endorsement of Rawat, and that the NYT was mocking both Watts and Rawat. As I mentioned above, Watts actually sponsored Rawat to come to the States in 1970 or thereabouts, obviously feeling that he was some kind of kindred spirit, or someone that people in the States would profit from looking at.
 * As for Collier, as I said on my talk page, I think the right way to go about this is to quote Collier to the extent that she is quoted by scholars, and no further, in order to avoid OR. Jayen 466 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the comment by Watts is not a criticism. I think it's descriptive and it may be complimentary as you say. I think that the New York Times is a reliable source and if they say that Watts made this remark then I believe to be accurately reported.
 * Perhaps the way to deal with this is by a compromise - why don't we remove all of the quotes, including those by Watts, Collier, et al.? There is "wikiquote" after all. We can simply summarize what's important here. The articles on this topic are becoming quote farms. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea but the problem is Wiki would then be blamed for the lack of "criticism" in the article. At least the way it is people can blame the experts.Momento (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can summarize the criticism along with everything else. Do you accept this compromise solution? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot of merit in that suggestion. Quotes are by their nature out of context and therefore polemical. The summarizing will have to be done in a great spirit of consensus-seeking. Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can't replace the quotes with summaries I'm going to continue to oppose your deletion of Watts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we going to summarize the material into a section called "reception" or incorporate into "teachings"? For instance, for readability we could break up teachings into "India", "70s" and "Westernization".Momento (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Collier
Will, why have you said Collier is a "one time member"? This isn't about DLM it's about Rawat's teachings. We know she left DLM as per "So, with no regrets, I decided to leave the organization and strike out on my own beckoning frontier." but that doesn't mean she left Rawat's teachings. Unless you can find a source, it should go.Momento (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer "former DLM member"? "Soda company founder"? We can't just give her name with giving readers some clue as to her relevance to this article. What is her relevance to this article? Just a random person with an opinion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Author is probably the most accurate. I'll mention her book.Momento (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody who write a book is an author. She has no credentials, no notability, and I don't see why her opinion is any more relevant than other miscellaneous people who've said this or that about the teachings. Considering that you were just saying that Randi wasn't an appropriate source I'm dismayed you'd add this. I guess the bar has been lowered to the ground. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * She provides a valuable first hand perspective on the techniques of Knowledge, unlike Randi who makes a living by being skeptical about things about which he has no experience. He likes easy targets, he doesn't have a skeptical thing to say about Christianity, no Virgin Birth, Resurection etc.Momento (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what does Collier say about Christianity, virgin birth, or resurrection? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the fundamental difference between Collier and Randi. Collier is writing about what she has experienced first hand, whereas Randi doesn't.Momento (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you propose we remove all materials from authors who don't have first-hand knowledge of Knowledge? That isn't a workable standard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I propose that reputable and published scholar's opinions are of the greatest value. But when considering non-scholars, then someone who has a first hand experience of practicing the techniques is far more credible than someone who hasn't. And last on the list are reporters taking an ambiguous quote out of its necessary context for their own purposes.Momento (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be your personal hierarchy but it doesn't square with Wikipedia policies and practices. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked my opinion and I gave it.Momento (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome to your opinion, just be sure to follow Wikipedia policies and practices when editing here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, you're doing Randi an injustice here. He has a go at all of those as well, see . It's not a bad essay. Jayen 466 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< FYI, Collier's book is cited in several sources about the subject (Kent, Geaves, Fahlbusch, Hackett=, Barret, and others) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars may cite all kinds of primary sources. It doesn't mean that this article should do so. You've argued elsewhere that the comments of Randi are inappropriate in a BLP. If you believe this is a BLP then the autobiography of someone who never met the biography subject would appear even more inappropriate. I don't see how Collier has a better reputation than Randi, or is a more relaible source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP? No, that is not the main argument. The main argument is the quality of the Randi source. If we know that the article is peppered with factual inaccuracies, why to use it? Also, show me who cites Randi? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi makes his money by being a professional sceptic. The more outlandish his statements, the higher his profile. His "encyclopedia" covers such serious topics as Big Foot, asiza and the Loch Ness monster. Using it as a source about the NRM is pathetic. Let's face it, if Randi had said "Rawat is a Sant guru" we wouldn't bother using it. It's only Randi's rudeness that makes it valuable.Momento (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars and authors all make money based on how many books they sell. We're not using Randi as a source for an NRM - we're using it as a source for a meditation technique. And your statement shows a failure to assume good faith. Please retract it and deal with your fellow editors more respectfully. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, arguments can be made without declaring our perceptions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the issue isn't how many books they sell, but what they do to achieve it. Most scholars aim for a NPOV, Randi aims for "skepticism". Secondly, Rawat's teachings are an NRM, just like Jesus's teachings are Christianity. Thirdly, your comment about me - "Ample evidence has been provided about this editor's problems." goes way beyond Good Faith.Momento (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most scholars do not try and aim for an NPOV, in fact, just the opposite. They try and have an original opinion on a subject, ever hear the phrase "publish or perish"? It's very common in Scholarly circles, and you don't get published by writing middle-of-the-road opinions. Secondly, Sophia Collier says in her book, she was in the ashram for 1 month, during that time she was highly experimental with LSD, and she wrote about her experience 6 years later. The fact that she's in the article at all is an embarrassment. The fact that you put more weight in her "professional" opinion than in Randi's is obviously because it's convenient for your POV. I see no problem with the quote that Will is suggesting, unless you count the fact that it doesn't agree with your POV. The noticeboard seems to agree, Randi is a quotable source. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, Prem Rawat's teachings were such a large part of Sophia Collier's life, that when discussing her past with CNN, she has this to say about that time in her life: Between the ages of 16 and 20, Collier lived on a Hopi Indian reservation and fixed boats in Arizona; and then ran a construction company and a food co-op in Portland, Maine. She published an autobiography of those years, called "Soul Life," at 20, and moved to Brooklyn in 1976.
 * Oh wait, she doesn't mention it at all. Well, I'm sure it takes up a big portion of her biography on Wikipedia, no doubt it's here. Oh, it's not there either. Still, I'm sure she's still considered an expert, at least by Momento. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Collier doesn't say "Between 16 and 20 etc....." She is quoted in the previous paragraph but the section you give is the CNN reporter's summary and she can't even get the name of her book right. Secondly, I don't claim Collier has a "professional" opinion but unlike Randi, she actually learned the techniques. Thirdly, Jossi wrote her Wiki bio and very properly didn't mention it. And fourthly, being "original" is not contrary to NPOV, scholars gain credibility by doing "original" research and uncovering new facts and then writing truthfully according to what they discover not by making up stuff to suit a POV.Momento (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Collier doesn't say "Between 16 and 20 etc....." She is quoted in the previous paragraph but the section you give is the CNN reporter's summary and she can't even get the name of her book right. Secondly, I don't claim Collier has a "professional" opinion but unlike Randi, she actually learned the techniques. And thirdly, being "original" is not contrary to NPOV, scholars gain credibility by doing new research and uncovering new facts and then writing truthfully according to what they discover not by making up stuff to suit a POV.Momento (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, so you think that CNN just made that part up huh? They didn't have any input from her? Ya, that's reasonable... Secondly, while learning the techniques would be useful for discussion purposes, I do not think it's mandatory, but I'll grant that you didn't say Collier was a "professional", although I would argue that Randi is, and therefore probably more relevant. Thirdly, why is it "very proper" of jossi to hide that relationship, and then allow her to be used as a presumably unbiased source? And fourthly, I'm just going to have to make the assumption that you don't spend much time in the world of academia, because your argument is just wrong. A large majority of work done by scholars and historians is predicated on the idea that there are reasons that things were done a certain way, and by looking at previously known facts in a new way, you can discover a pattern that was not obvious, or even noticed before, and this new pattern creates a whole new model that lends credence to new ideas about why things were done. Occasionally new facts are discovered, and that leads to a lot of new publications, but that is not usually the case. Your description of research is the type done by scientists, that doesn't apply here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, so you think that CNN just made that part up huh? They didn't have any input from her? Ya, that's reasonable... Secondly, while learning the techniques would be useful for discussion purposes, I do not think it's mandatory, but I'll grant that you didn't say Collier was a "professional", although I would argue that Randi is, and therefore probably more relevant. Thirdly, why is it "very proper" of jossi to hide that relationship, and then allow her to be used as a presumably unbiased source? And fourthly, I'm just going to have to make the assumption that you don't spend much time in the world of academia, because your argument is just wrong. A large majority of work done by scholars and historians is predicated on the idea that there are reasons that things were done a certain way, and by looking at previously known facts in a new way, you can discover a pattern that was not obvious, or even noticed before, and this new pattern creates a whole new model that lends credence to new ideas about why things were done. Occasionally new facts are discovered, and that leads to a lot of new publications, but that is not usually the case. Your description of research is the type done by scientists, that doesn't apply here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

<< As fascinating as this discussion is, it begs the question: what are you discussing here? Is it all about Collier's opinion being suitable or not for this article? If there is no consensus, an RfC may be one way to get additional input. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I review press clippings I see a number of active and former members being quoted. I'm not sure why Collier is more noteworthy then they are. If we're just reporting what non-noteworthy individuals we can add a lot more with views to balance those of Collier. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·


 * jossi, can we get a non weasel-worded answer (yes/no would be nice!) to the question, "Do you think this quote from Collier is suitable in this place, in this article, as is?"? My opinion regarding an RfC would be, that is premature. There are more than enough editors here, who have not yet weighed in, if we are unable to achieve consensus here, that would be the correct time to extend an RfC to the community. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no specific problem with Collier's source. But note that as it is a primary sources, we need to excercise caution of we use it. As we have several secondary sources on the subject, we may decide that it us not needed if it does not add value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Downton and Galanter provide interviews with more than a dozen people who have received Knowledge, they would add more variety and perhaps more balance. And they are certainly more reliable than newspaper reports. Collier is quoted by scholars and that gives her opinion some credibility that a newspaper reports lacks.Momento (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times is just as reliable, if not more so, than "Soul Rush". I don't think theres a consensus to retain Collier.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is there consensus to remove Collier. If we're serious about providing Wiki readers with information, Collier is an excellent resource.Momento (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watts and Randi are excellent sources too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watts is a good source badly used and Randi is a professional sceptic whose section on Rawat was full of mistakes.Momento (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation
Maybe mediation could be helpful in resolving issues with that source and others about which there is no agreement. My view is if that with some flexibility from all sides these issues are not insurmountable. We could ask an informal mediator from the MedCab to give us a hand. I will place a request later today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That may help. I've removed the Collier quote pending agreement on all of these. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of first asking a couple of the volunteers at MedCab to take a look and see if they would be interested in helping out. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the matter with formal mediation? The issues are well-defined. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought that informal mediation may be a good first step forward. The MedCab has some excellent volunteers. If that fails, we can always seek formal mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that formal mediation is more suitable, since this is a highly polarized group of editors with a clearly defined dispute.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ted Patrick
This comment - "Reports obtained after deprogramming by controversial deprogrammer Ted Patrick and others refer to the experience of meditation by practitioners as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think." suggest that the deprogrammed premies claimed that "meditation was self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think". Is that the intention? Can it be expressed more clearly?Momento (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging?
The DLM article is about the organization, beliefs by members, and other such information. This article is about the teachings of Prem Rawat. Why do we have two proposals for merging? Is not this article a spinoff of the main article? If I recall correctly, we had last year a large section on the main article that was summarized and this article spun-off. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which "main article" are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, this article began as Current teachings of Prem Rawat and had more material merged in from Techniques of Knowledge. Weren't you involved in those moves and mergers? If you have a diff showing that this was spun off from "Prem Rawat" last year that'd help clarify your point.


 * The issue is that we have an article on PR, one on DLM, one on EV, and one on "teachings". It's not clear how to divide information on teachings between those. Some of PR's teachings were inherited or traditional, and some of his teachings changed over time. It's not clear that the DLM or the EV have ever taught anything that wasn't PR's teachings (though they may have been misinterpreted by followers/mahatmas/initiators, etc.) It would help if we could develop some plan for which information goes into which articles. Anyway, I suggest that the editor who proposes the merges discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it was User:Rumiton who worked on the spinoff. He may find the diff for that. The "past teachings" article was gutted by Andries on the basis of lack of sources, to the point it contained no useful information (the lack of sources was quite obvious). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between gutting and cleaning up? Isn't it a good thing to remove unsourced statements? If we can source them I'm sure we can add them back. Anyway, do you have a specific reason to not split this information into the DLM and Prem Rawat articles, other than it may undo some of Rumiton's work? I don't understand your assertion, above that the DLM article is for the "beliefs by members" while this article is for the "teaching of Prem Rawat". Are you saying that the teachings of Prem Rawat aren't a part of the DLM? Are the things that PR taught while in the DLM fully represented here? That seems an odd way to split things out, but it's at least one possible scheme. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mention "gutted" in a negative way, and sorry if that is the way it came out. The material in that article (circa 2006) was unsourced and thus removed. As for this and other articles, it would be normal that some material will find its home in several articles, and that would not be an issue. This article, as far as I can gather, describes the teachings of PR as reported by scholarly sources and other authors. The DLM article deals more with organizational aspects, ashrams, members of the DLM, etc. I am sure you can find parallels on other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, Galanter's text may be better suited to be included (if not already there) in the DLM article, as it describes members of the DLM and not "teachings". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The plan, if I recall correctly, was that the "current" material came to this article while the "past" material went to "DLM". The former teachings of PR, identified as such, belong in one article or another. I agree that the Galanter quotation is more about the DLM membership than teachings and I don't know why Momento wanted it here instead, except that it shows the meditation technique in a positive light. I think we should probably have a section on the teachings of the DLM in that article, both as a summary of what's here that covers that times frame, and to mention specific teachings that may not have been authorized by PR (such as telling people that PR is just like Jesus, or hyping him up as his family did).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Galanter needs to go to the DLM article. As for the dichotomy you describe, it is quite obvious but difficult to present without engaging in OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Though it's really not clear that that Galanter quote is representative of his views on the DLM, or is otherwise the best long quote to use. As for the dichotomy, perhaps I didn't explain my suggestion well enough. Let's say he have a reliable source for a mahatma telling people that Prem Rawat is like Jesus. That isn't a teaching of Prem Rawat, that's a teaching of the DLM. So logically it belongs there.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a "teaching" of anyone. It's a comment. Satsang in the 70s was a free for all where anyone who had Knowledge could get up and say what they wanted. And how is Rawat like Jesus? Raising the dead, no. Crucified. no. A carpenter, no. A spiritual teacher, yes. Taking one person's comment out of context creates problems.Momento (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What officials of a group say in official contexts are teachings. I don't know how we could differentiate them now, or how followers coould have diffentiated them then. Maybe they were unauthorized teachings, and if there's further sources to that effect then fine. But that's just an example. The point is that not all teachings of Prem Rawat are the teachings of the DLM, and vice versa. The general problem is figuring to how to create a plan for deciding which info goes into which articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what one official of a group says in official context is an opinion. A teaching is what all the officials say. It has to be widely disseminated and widely believed. The DLM article should be concerned with what it was, "an organization" and what it "organized", Millennium, ashrams, businesses etc. It's "beliefs" are Rawat's teachings. And that is where they belong.Momento (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and it was widely believed by Rawat's followers that he was God, and confirmed by at least one Mahatma at an official event. is it really necessary to requote every instance of followers believing he was God, Downton alone has multiple different references to that fact. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've created a central discussion for mergers, Talk:Prem Rawat. This particular discussion can continue here, but it'd also be helpful to view it in the broader context. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot Archiving Objections?
If there's no objections, I'd like to set-up some auto-archiving here with miszabot, like I have on some of these other articles. These talk pages get a little unwieldy after a few hundred kb's. 14 days back is my thought. Any objections, speak up, I'll set it up tomorrow if none. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More scholars and more material
I've added the "scholars" material from "Criticism of Prem Rawat" as they are not criticisms of him but comments on his teachings. I've also begun adding more from the scholars. I have reverted to the last unmodified version as I'm not sure how much we can reproduce scholars material before breaking copyright rules. Comments please.Momento (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that inserting a paragraph-long quotation from each scholar is an effective way to write an encyclopedia article. It would be better to break the article into topics and include all relevant viewpoints on each topic. Straight quotations should go in Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that long quotations are not a good practice. I am sure that you can help Momento and summarize these long quotes into good prose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or do we write a history of Rawat's teachings chronologically and not have a "scholars section"?.Momento (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that rather than summarzing those quotes it'd be better to research the important topics in this article and add what scholars say about them. Right now all the details about the teachings themselves are lumped into one section: "teachings". I suggest we split that into subheadings covering different aspects of the teachings, such as "meditation", "service", satsangs", etc. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough material that will fit happily into those divisions.Momento (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty on each, so providing enough sources would not be a problem. One of the articles that was merged here used these headings:
 * 1 Origins
 * 2 Descriptions
 * 3 Experience
 * 4 Knowledge sessions
 * "Origins" was renamed to "history". The others don't seem to be useful distinctions. There was a section titled " Generic references to the kryias, Knowledge and the teacher", which might cover material that predates Prem Rawat (Though "Techniques of Knowledge" may be a better title).
 * Yet another version of the article used these headings:
 * 1 Message and teachings
 * 2 The Keys
 * 2.1 The thirst
 * 2.2 Accepting the world within
 * 2.3 "Knowledge"
 * 2.4 Knowledge is a journey, not a destination
 * 3 The practice of Knowledge
 * 3.1 Listening
 * 3.2 Helping out, participating
 * 3.3 Practicing the techniques
 * 3.4 Importance of the living teacher
 * Those are a variation on what I was suggesting, though they don't appear neutral. Here's yet another version:
 * 1 World peace versus inner peace
 * 2 The teachings
 * 2.1 Conditions for the practice of Knowledge to bear fruit
 * 2.2 What was and is now understood by “the practice of Knowledge”
 * 2.2.1 Listening (satsang)
 * 2.2.2 Helping out, participating (seva)
 * 2.2.3 Importance of the living teacher
 * 2.2.3.1 Appreciation for the teacher
 * 3 The Knowledge process and the teaching of the techniques
 * 3.1 The preparation and the Knowledge session
 * 3.2 Criteria for being taught the techniques
 * 3.3 Technology used for teaching the techniques
 * 3.4 Ashram life
 * 3.5 Mind and heart
 * 4 Indian aspects in the presentation of the teachings
 * 4.1 Indian staff
 * 4.2 People speaking in his name
 * 4.3 Communication through ashrams replaced by internet and satellite
 * 4.4 Distance from Hinduism
 * 4.5 Compatibility with religions
 * Some of that was merged to the DLM article, but it looks like it has some wortwhile material. Implementing that, whether through fresh research or digging through old versions, is a big job. I suggest starting with simple headings for Satsang, Service, and Medititation, as well as for receiving Knowledge and any other topical issues that are worth including. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess a lot depends on whether we divide it according to what Rawat says or what scholars say.Momento (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the scholars and first person accounts I've seen describe three main aspects of Knowledge, including four types of meditation. They are the most reliable sources. Rawat is a primary source and should only be used to augment secondary sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what is the problem with the current sections. It works well as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it doesn't matter until we start expanding this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge Sessions?
Are there still personal Knowledge Sessions being given? Or are they just arranged showings of "The Keys" now? It's my understanding that "The Keys" is the only method to currently obtain Knowledge, but my notes don't seem to indicate where I got that idea from (I reverted my edits when I realized this, until this is cleared up). Can this be confirmed or rejected please? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Knowledge Sessions still happen, albeit via a multi-media presentation. Information is available in the Keys website: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

These techniques can only be taught by him...
Rumiton, you removed this phrase claiming it was unsupported by the ref given. If the techniques can only be learned from Key 6, and PR is the only one teaching on Key 6, why are you removing that phrase? I am unaware of any other way you could learn the techniques, since adherents are asked not to share their experience with others. Do you know of some other way that would invalidate that claim? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Maelefique, I missed your question before now. The way it was worded, the sentence implied that Prem Rawat claimed nobody else could teach the techniques. I don't think that is true. There are other yoga schools that teach them. But in Prem Rawat's movement, for want of a better word, they ARE taught only by him, though in previous decades the role was delegated to initiators. Rumiton (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In many of the commentary by Rawat that I've read he has repeated in various ways that the only way to Knowledge is through him (or, presumably his mahatmas/initiators). While similar techniques may be taught by other yogis, I don't recall ever reading Rawat say so.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The text in question includes edits to two sentences: Rumiton deleted the struck-through text on the basis of the current refs not supporting the assertions. Let's find better refs to support the info. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
 * Prem Rawat did not inherit a formal set of teachings nor did he develop one as he sees conceptual thinking as the main enemy of direct religious experience which he claims can be discovered by the techniques of Knowledge to which he alone holds the keys. 
 *  These techniques can only be taught by him, and practitioners are asked not to reveal these techniques to anyone else.

Merge proposal
I see there is a merge proposal on the main page - I really think this article should be merged with Prem Rawat, it's not notable enough on its own. Kelly hi! 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! This is a spinoff of the main article and supported by 42 sources the majority of which are scholarly sources. On which basis are you asserting "lack of notability" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I said not notable enough on its own. Those sources mainly deal with Rawat himself. There's no good reason not to merge this into that article. Kelly  hi! 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SUMMARY, or are you suggesting we merge all your favorite VP candidate sub articles into her main article? Please be consistent with your remarks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam? Why has this been deleted as "spam"? diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The focus of this article has evolved, has been debated, and has not yet been resolved. There are more or less three articles which merged into this one: Techniques of Knowledge, Current teachings of Prem Rawat, and [[Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Despite the name, some of these teachings are attributed to Prem Rawat's father, or even to earlier teachers. On the other hand, the teachings have not necessarily remained the same even during Rawat's career. I have said elsewhere that I'm unsatisfied with this article and its focus, and that I think it needs to be fixed. I've also said that it is not a personal priority to do so and that's still true. Despite its problems I think it should be kept until it can be improved or the merger carried out with care. I previously suggested a split merger of this material between the Rawat article and the DLM article, and I still think that the whole issue should be given a fresh look.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are more than 20 articles that start with "Teachings of...". I think they should be merged into the article of the persons or organizations concerned, so we have more unified articles, less spread out under different names, even though this will make articles longer. Divine Light Mission was started by Prem's father, Shri Hans, so to me it seems more logical to merge it with the founder rather than with Prem Rawat. "Teachings of Prem Rawat" of course should be part of the article on Prem Rawat. I agree with Will Beback that at least some of Prem's teachings, perhaps all, could also be attributed to his father and to earlier teachers. To me they are basically the same teachings as those of ancient traditional and also modern recent yogis and gurus, even if the presentation is different. Gurus and masters cannot speak the same way to audiences of different times and cultures, even if the message is essentially the same --Pedrero (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged section "Teaching Knowledge / The Keys" as a subsection of Teachings
 * Merged "Students" with contained Schnabel/Lans viewpoints, onto the "Scholars" section alongside other scholars' viewpoints.

Orphaned references in Teachings of Prem Rawat
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Teachings of Prem Rawat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Melton1986": From Prem Rawat: Melton (1986), pp. 141-145 From Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations: Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York/London: Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5, pp. 141-145.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Name or Word Technique using a Mantra word
"Kranenborg additionally states that it employs mantras while exhaling." This Mantra idea is false and is not verifiable. The current techniques are not public but they have not changed from the old Knowledge days. These are widely available on the web. Wikipedia is meant to inform as accurately as possible and hence I am removing the Mantra reference because it is misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.200.87 (talk • contribs) 03:51, November 17, 2007

Was the above from Zanthrop? Putting a section break in the middle of an edit is a bad idea, as it makes it difficult to respond to it.

The descriptions of the techniques in the cited website are significantly different from those promoted by Goom Rodgie's authorized representatives ("mahatmas") before and during his high-water-mark-in-America year of 1973. If some were to practice the techniques exactly as published on that website, I would certainly have no problems with that, but, of course, they would have NO NEED whatsoever for this "motitivational speaker" (formerly Lord of the Universe).

The big problems in the past came from the precise techniques taught along with the exact way they were taught, coupled with the process of proving you were worthy of initiation and the communal living situations in ashrams, premie houses, applicant ashrams and all that.

Does anyone have access to back issues of The Detroit Free Press on microfilm? A medical doctor who was interviewed during the summer of 1973 (when Pat Haley treated the guru appropriately) stated, on the front page, that "the light" is a "phosphene reaction" from pressing on your eyes. I don't recall his descriptions of the other two techniques, but he described the "nectar" as "snot can taste sweet, sometimes." Those descriptions should certainly be in the article. Consumers need to be warned about this garbage.

There are valuable meditation techniques available for free in the world that do NOT make you go blind and that do not require that you accept the "spiritual" authority of some fat, ugly and disease-ridden guru. Nobody ever hit Angarika Sri Munindra or Lama Lodu in the face with a shaving cream pie. There is a reason for that. Wowest (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the original message was apparently left by an anonymous editor back in 2007. Because it was unsigned and undated it wasn't archived automatically like the other old messages. Here's the edit made by the same editor. If it's properly sourced it should probably be restored.   Will Beback    talk    05:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lede
'The teachings of Prem Rawat are based on his central claim that peace resides in every human being and that the human quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning inward to discover the contentment and joy within.'

I think that's inaccurate. I think that the teachings of Prem Rawat consist of meditation instruction and, at this point, nothing else except for a one page list of commandments including "leave no room in your mind for doubt," and "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name." The part about the Guru being God (or greater than God, on one poster), the Mind being "Satan" and the ... moral obligation to give the guru and his organization all of your time and money now seems to be being blamed on the Divine Light Mission organization. Something should probably be said, though, about the premies who signed over all of their trust funds, money, property and "potential inheritances" to enter the guru's ashrams only to be thrown out on the street, penniless, when they became older and the ashrams were closed. Wowest (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about what anyone 'thinks' - it is an encyclopedia, otherwise it would be crammed full of personal points of view. The content must be referenced to appropriate sources, and in the case of a living person, extra care is required.  This topic should not be a blog for personal points of view on Prem Rawat.  Terry Macro (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't play semantic games with me. Nothing appears in print anywhere unless someone "thought" it first. I think we need a definition of "teachings" at this point. Some premies have said that his only teachings are the meditation -- and that he promotes no beliefs. Currently, the lede starts with an expressed belief. What is accurate, and how do we know that? Wowest (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that his teachings are not "based on his central claim" and are you seeking to justify that by what some of his followers say? Are these followers anything like the guy with the "bad phone connection trying to listening to his own thinking in his own head" or are they somehow able to think coherently? Zanthorp 15:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


 * The lede expresses what's in the notes section: Pergamino (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ^ Drury, Michael, The Dictionary of the Esoteric: 3000 Entries on the Mystical and Occult Traditions, pp.75-6, (2002), Sterling Publishing Company, ISBN 1-842-93108-3 "Maharaj Ji [teaches] meditation upon the life-force. This meditation focuses on four types of mystical energy, known as the experiences of Light, Harmony, Nectar, and the Word. These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge."
 * 2) ^ Chryssides, George D. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements pp.210-1, Scarecrow Press (2001) ISBN 0-8108-4095-2 "This Knowledge was self-understanding, yielding calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine. Knowledge is attained through initiation, which provides four techniques that allow the practitioner to go within.
 * 3) ^ Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 "The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self, which brings a sense of well-being, joy and harmony. The Knowledge includes four meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full."

FORMER FOLLOWERS section
I was surprised to find this while doing a bit of extra reading and I have taken the unusual step of deleting it entirely, but forgot to include an edit summary. Patrick is a convicted criminal[]. The passage appears to justify his criminality. Also, the 1st sentence doesn't make sense. Patrick didn't obtain the reports, they are his reports presumably. That makes him the source. In addition to his criminality, I think his obvious bias would have to be referred to if he is to be accepted as a source. --Zanthorp 07:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


 * You also removed "Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6" without any explanation of why that did not support the text. I suggest you reinstate your deletion and open up your concerns about the text for discussion rather than deleting a whole section without any proposal for alternative text. Otherwise this looks like a return to editwarring. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage Zanthorp to make the changes he proposes. Deleting it entirely is not a good idea because it's a notable viewpoint.   Will Beback    talk    00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Conway/Siegelman is self-published and thus falls under WP:SPS. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The first edition is published by a reliable publisher. The 2nd edition was apparently self-published.   Will Beback    talk    01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So we need to check the first edition to see if it's in there in order to be on safe ground.   Will Beback    talk    01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone appears to have an agenda here. SPS says

'''Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.'''


 * The authors had already established their expertise by being published in the first edition, and the second edition is essentially the same as the first -- certainly in the case of Divine Light Mission and all that, which hasn't done anything newsworthy since, perhaps, 1974. The biggest differences seem to be in the page numbers, which are different, as is the type size. We should probably go ahead and cite the second edition, since it is easier to locate for validation purposes.

Regarding Mr. Patrick, he is in fact, a convicted criminal. So what? So was Nelson Mandela. Does that invalidate his opinion? Further, Patrick's book is ghost-written. He isn't literate enough to have done that himself. He's just street-wise. I think the Marcia Carroll quotation should stand on its own strength.

Most courts have held that Mr. Patrick's motivation did, in fact, justify his behavior. The Common Law doctrine involved is called the "justification of necessity." However, Common Law defenses are not admissible in all jurisdictions, although they are included in the Model Penal Code. In the Crampton case, cited in the article, the court found that Patrick was acting as the agent of the parents of Kathy Crampton, a young adult, and ruled that "The parents who would do less than what Mr. and Mrs. Crampton did for their daughter Kathy would be less than responsible, loving parents. Parents like the Cramptons here, have justifiable grounds, when they are of the reasonable belief that their child is in danger, under hypnosis or drugs, or both, and that their child is not able to make a free, voluntary, knowledgeable decision."

Of course, it was significant that members of the "Love Family" who participated in the LSD "sacrament" in the presence of Paul Erdman, a/k/e "Love Israel," learned that Love was "Greater than or equal to God," and, of course that they had a duty to turn over to him all of their money and valuables. Members of the Manson Family had similar insights under similar circumstances, but the California legal system did not have a means to find Leslie Van Houten and the others "not guilty by virtue of temporary insanity."

Scientologists, of course, are not under the influence of mind-altering drugs, as far as any experts have written. They are merely the dupes of an elaborate con-scheme which frequently leads to an angry and abrupt non-coerced exit when they learn that "body Thetans" were created long ago when an evil space tyrant named Xenu dropped nuclear weapons on sentient beings who had previously been secured to volcanoes. Wowest (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, but the (possibly) self-published source in question is Conway and Siegelman, who quote Patrick. It's possible that Patrick made similar observations in his own book, but we'd need to find it there. (BTW, Patricks' book was published by Ballantine, a reputable publiser.)   Will Beback    talk    05:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1st edition of Snapping is available via Google. There's at least one report of the type mentioned in the now-deleted text, on page 159. I think the sourcing is OK, so we should restore the text and Zanthorp can add some mention of Partick's conviction if that's necessary.   Will Beback    talk    06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused -- what you link there is the second edition. Stillpoint Press is Conway's and Siegelman's own publishing company. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik is quite correct. Somehow by removing the text I also removed the second source. I don't know how that happened. It may have been due to a glitch in the software and if so its not the first problem I've had. The first source, David Barret's book, still appears in the reference list. The quoted section from Barret does not support the deleted text. Thanks Will for the Google link. I checked 'Snapping' pp159,160 and it does not support the deleted text. PP159,160 refers to "jamming the mind" and "putting the mind on hold" to get rid of "uncomfortable emotion" etc. There is no mention of self hypnosis or Ted Patrick. Other available pages barely mention the DLM or its members. When they get a mention, PP174,175 for example, they are lumped together with many other groups including the Moonies, Scientology, the Krishna group, and Bible sects. Under a graph on P175 the DLM is referred to as a "Hindu sect." According to the authors there is a correlation between the "new spiritual and personal growth practices" associated with all of those groups what they call "information disease symptoms." Wikipedia does allow the inclusion of fringe theories, however, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is exceptional only in that it appears to be inaccurate at least in part and probably poorly researched. It supports the deleted text only in part. there is no mention of self-hypnosis, Conway and Siegelman are not "several scholars" and as far as I know, no source refers to Rawat's followers as "worshippers."  Here's the text I removed. "Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation.[52][53]" I'm sure this was written in good faith.


 * The problem is that it is so poorly devised and contentious that I think it best to leave it out of the article pending the outcome of further discussion and further investigation of the sources. An edit war would not be productive and that's not what I had in mind. I'm pretty sure that this can be resolved amicably by discussion. --Zanthorp 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


 * It's a question of process, there's much that should possibly be pulled from the Rawat articles but it would be better to discuss the changes in advance rather than each one of us making the change we want and having everyone else discuss it after the fact. Removing a whole section seems particularly inappropriate. The issue of stray and unrelated references is I think a significant problem throughout the Rawat articles and represents poor editing over time - however merely scrubbing the references is not the best approach, the references may well have supported text which should not have been edited out and the existence of an orphan reference should elicit a check of the history, not summary deltion. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an earlier version of the text: "Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammed from Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Patrick's autobiographical ghost-writer, Tom Dulack, quotes Marcia at length, describing each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there."

This assessment is seconded by Dr. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman in the second edition of their study "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change." They quote a former premie as saying "after my deprogramming, it took several weeks before I was able to maintain a train of thought and make two sentences go together without having the whole thing erased. Meditation had become a conditioned response. My mind just kept doing it automatically.""

It seems like that material became condensed and perhaps lost accuracy in the process. The material from Snapping is also in the 1st ediiton. Any objections to restoring this verion?  Will Beback   talk    15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've been doing some good research. I'm sure there is something else in Snapping from another former premie about it seeming like a bad phone connection trying to listening to his own thinking in his own head after practicing Maharaji's meditation for a while. I know of more examples, personally, but I don't think they've been documented in reliable sources. During the summer of 1973, a physician was quoted on the front page of the Detroit Free Press debunking the meditation techniques. He said that the "light" was actually a phosphene reaction from pressing on your own eyeballs and that the "nectar" was explained by "snot can taste sweet, sometimes." Wowest (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Let's have that earlier version restored, which at least provides a platform to work from.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The earlier version that Will wants to reinstate set off warning bells for me and prompted me to do a bit of my own research. Unfortunately Will's research fails to mention that Conway and Sieglelman have been widely discredited by more serious researchers. Ted Patrick in particular has been justifiably discredited and condemned.

From Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory by J. Gordon Melton

"Among the most widely circulated statements of support for Singer came in the book Snapping, authored by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. Snapping was the name they gave to the effect upon cult members when the brainwashing process took over. As these opinions became known at the end of the 1970s, they produced a storm of comment and through the mid 1980s the issues were fully aired at various scholarly gatherings, and a significant scholarly consensus that the brainwashing model used by Singer and her colleagues was woefully inadequate emerged. That consensus, most clearly stated in the negative responses to the report that Singer and her colleagues would prepare for the American Psychological Association, would in turn be injected into the court process in the late 1980s and lead to the rejection of the "Singer hypothesis" by U.S. courts and a series of reverses by the Cult Awareness Network and indeed the whole anti-cult movement in the 1990s.

(Singer had noted in her Psychology Today article that her view of the new religions had been almost totally formed by her sessions with ex-members, the great majority of whom had come to her only after being deprogrammed.) Among the issues rarely discussed was the assumption that many (hundreds if not thousands) of the new religious movements existed but data about and attacks upon "cults" was limited to a relative few groups. Only five groups, the Unification Church, the Divine Light Mission, The Way International, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and Church of Scientology, were regularly mentioned with less than twenty additional groups also cited on rare occasions. Galanter's analysis had the effect of reducing the significance of the observed abnormal behavior reported among former members. He also suggested an alternative means of understanding otherwise inexplicable behavior in members and ex-members without considering them as suffering from psychopathology. Galanter's work, along with that of several other psychiatrists who saw members of new religions in nonpathological terms,(30) provided the substantial challenge to the Singer hypothesis from the psychological community.

While Galanter's work was being read by psychiatrists and psychologists, on a popular level, Conway and Siegelman were making broad sweeping claims of pathology among the members of the reputed thousands of cults operating in the West. Though lacking any medical or psychological credentials, in Snapping, they posed the existence of an as yet unknown disease caused by membership in a cult. This "information disease," as they termed it, was produced by the manipulation of information by cult leaders. In essence, they suggested that the individual nervous system is fed by information flowing into it. The practice of various spiritual disciplines (from prayer and meditation to chanting and yoga) shut off the flow of information for long periods of time and created a disorder of awareness. Going even further, they suggested that the amount of time needed in rehabilitation was directly related to the amount of time a member had spent in group rituals and spiritual practices. Conway and Siegelman stated in blatantly popular language what Singer had been saying in much more staid terms: membership in cults caused significant pathology and former members required extensive psychological therapy. And while the approach of Galanter and others suggested nonpathological perspectives for understanding ex-members, clinicians such as Singer continued to see pathology in most ex-members. This pathology was initially seen as an "atypical dissociative disorder" and also as similar to the "delayed stress syndrome" often experienced by Vietnam War veterans. (31)

If Conway and Siegelman's work did anything, it spurred research in that most difficult of work areas, ex-members. While members of new religions could be contacted and studied relatively quickly, former members tended to fade into the larger population and required some effort to locate. However, researchers quickly noted that Conway and Siegelman's samples, like those used by Singer, had been drawn from that relatively small group of former members who had associated with the anti-cult movement, some because they had left due to a bad experience in the group, but the great majority because they had been deprogrammed. These people constituted but a tiny percentage of former members (10 to 15%), and were drawn from the same relatively few groups upon which the anti-cult movement was focused.

Attempts to survey and study ex-members was pioneered by J. T. Ungerleider, D. K. Wellisch, Trudy Solomon and Stuart Wright, whose works helped to break many of the stereotypes of former members. Ungerleider and Wellisch (32) were among the first to point out significant differences between ex-members who left voluntarily and the those who were deprogrammed, the later group usually going on to become involved with the anti-cult movement and in the practice of deprogramming others. Solomon and Wright extended the consideration pointing out that those former members involved with the anti-cult movement represented only a very small percentage of former members. Solomon, found in her study of former members of the Unification Church, that attitude toward the Church were directly related to their method of severing membership (voluntary or forced) and their subsequent level of contact with the anti-cult movement (low to high), with the later option correlating with a negative assessment of the Church. (33) In like measure, Wright found that those who voluntarily left the various controversial new religions rarely adopted brainwashing language to discuss their experience. (34)

Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions. Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms among ex-members, the process of leaving the group. Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."

In other words, there is a direct correlation between "dysfunctional symptoms" (inability to maintain a train of thought, etc) and association with the anti-cult movement and so called "deprogrammers." Those who had not been exposed to the anti-cultists and deprogrammers showed dramatically lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms. Moreover, Conway and Siegelman's flawed research was based only on this small percentage of involuntary "leave takers" who had had the misfortune to encounter the anti-cultists and deprogrammers such as Patrick.

For a far more detailed account see, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm

Larry Shinn, Professor of religion at Bucknell University states, "My first encounter with the extent and power of the cult fear in America was as a spectator in a Santa Monica courtroom in June 1981. I watched a family tragedy unfold as a young woman, Rebecca Foster, testified to the physical and psychological abuse she underwent at the hands of deprogrammer Ted Patrick during his kidnapping, false imprisonment, and forced deprogramming of her. What had inspired her mother, brother, and sister to attempt to force Rebecca out of her year-old Hare Krsna faith by hiring Patrick? By their own testimony, the Foster family's fear of the cults stemmed from reading Patrick's book, Let Our Children Go, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman's Snapping, and Jack Spark's The Mind Benders.

As I sat in the courtroom after the trial, mulling over the court's verdict that Rebecca's family was guiltless, I realised that there was something going on in the minds of the jurors that I did not understand fully. Only later, when I read juror-interviews that talked of Rebecca's zombie-like state and her 'robot' appearance on the witness stand, did I begin to realise why they had refused to believe her testimony. The foreman of the Foster jury said after the trial, 'Her testimony was quite plastic. She was like a puppet with strings being pulled by someone else.' In a similar fashion one cannot believe the testimony of witches."

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm

Shinn's essay explores the way in which deprogrammers such as Patrick and anti-cult writers including Conway and Siegelman have exploited anti-cult paranoia. I'm tempted to add, "for their own financial gain" however, both Melton and Shinn stop just short of that probably out of fear of litigation.

I conclude that the flawed work of Conway and Siegelman is based on a widely discredited theory. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Conway and Siegelman's book, especially the self published 2nd ed, does not meet this criterion. For the same reason, Ted Patrick's attempt to justify his criminal behavior has no place in this article. The inclusion of such material uncontested would mislead readers and seriously degrade the quality of the article.

Will, would you please provide a link to the discussion which resulted in the removal of that earlier version of the text. Zanthorp 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Hmm. Given the apparent mispunctuation of the quotation above, we can't tell how much of it is from Melton and how much is OR. Sources including http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html and others indicate that Melton is a totally discredited intellectual whore who has taken money and free perquisites from the Unification Church in exchange for selling out the integrity of his discipline as well as his own professed religion.

Regardless of the source, it misses the rather obvious point that those "religious converts" who are the most messed-up are the ones whose parents are mostly likely to call the deprogrammers in the first place. Did the subject live in an ashram or premie house, for example? If he/she wasn't that far into the mind-control practices in play, he/she wouldn't be as messed-up as someone wo was. Someone who just tried the meditation for a day or two, got nothing much from it, and went back to his LSD wouldn't be impacted very much. This chain goes back even further, of course, but that's enough for this purpose. Patrick, as well as Conway and Siegelman have expressed well-based negative opinions about Maharaj Ji's meditation practices, and those should clearly be included. Wowest (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all more competently discussed here: http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Wowest (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Galanter isn't the best source either. http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Galanter.html criticizes his shameless promotion of Alcoholics Anonymous with an anecdote about a member who benefited. The criticism is that he omitted the other nineteen members who checked AA out at the same time and left without stopping drinking. It seems that AA has a FIVE PERCENT success rate. Galanter has also been discredited for his favorable opinions on cults, in general, although he also opines that Maharaj Ji runs one. . http://www.skepticfiles.org/can/can-bbs.htm . Wowest (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind admitting I'm out of my depth here. Obviously I have a lot more reading to do to bring myself up to speed. If the objective is to produce more or less stable, believable article, and I'm assuming that's the aim of these discussions, from what I've seen so far I think it would be best to stick to the most reliably, hopefully credible sources and avoid discredited theories. I'll get back to you in a few days when I get time to absorb all of this. Zanthorp 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore the earlier version posted above. If the sources have been "discredited" then that information belongs in the articles about those individuals. If we have information that directly contradicts these assertions then that belongs here. While some may disagree with Patrick, Conway, and Siegelman, they represent singificant points of view, without which this article is not neutral, per WP:NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's please not have the slander of Melton again. Melton is among the most prolific contributors to Encyclopedia Britannica, his books are widely lauded by scholars -- they are standard reference works and used as required reading in university courses. He has infinitely more academic credibility than Conway/Siegelman will ever have. The same with Galanter ... using self-published websites to discredit published academics is just silly.
 * General note: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is slandering Melton. Melton took money and other favors from $cientology and/or the Moonies. He's also up to his neck in CESNUR. Therefore, he has NO credibility when it comes to cults. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nobody believes his opinions in those areas except cult zombies, e.g. current Moonies, $cientologists et al. Why don't you call up to Westmont College and ask Ron Enroth, who happens to be a real sociologist of religion (as opposed to a cult shill with an opinion an a footnote) about Mr. Melton? Besides, we aren't talking about Maharaj Ji's religious beliefs or his personal criminal behavior. We're talking about these self-destructive so-called "meditation techniques" he, his organization and his father have been promoting. Nobody in his right mind would engage in such practices. And we're talking about the related ideas promoted by his former organization, Divine Light Mission, e.g. Prem Rawat is "The Lord of the Universe," the world will end on November 8, 9 or 10 of 1973, the meditation is free but you have a moral obligation to give all of your money to Rawat and/or his organizations, to make substantial spiritual progress, you should kiss the guru's feet due to the "spiritual polarity" of the human body, the Mind is Satan (Rawat himself actually documentedly used the word "demon"), you should only listen to the "music" on the right side of your head (Dr. Thelma Moss was LIVID when she heard THAT one. That practice measurably shifts the body's energy fields to one side. She said that anyone doing that "couldn't even think right." ). Well, who am I gonna believe? The author of The Probability of the Impossible or some fat, ugly teenaged guru with a substance abuse problem and an ulcer who frequently claims to have a Superman comic book? Unfortunately, we can't put that in the article per se, although it's all either documented or obvious, but it's important that the editors are aware that we're dealing with a "religious" scam that dates back a century or thereabouts in India. Oh. Let me correct that. It isn't up to date. Rawat is no longer teenager.

Anyway, so O.K. We cite the FIRST edition, which is not self-published, but also note the page numbers in the second-edition, which is virtually identical but easier to locate. That should satisfy everyone, don't you think?

I notice that certain editors are attacking Seigleman's and Conway's "academic credentials," (a Rhodes Scholar and a PhD in communication) and "discredited theory." We aren't interested in their theory. We are interested in their observations and in the distinguished former premies they quote. It isn't everyone who is willing to come forward and confess that they used to be suckers. We aren't interested in the former premies' opinions about the living Fat Guru of our Times. We're interested in their expressed experiences as former consumers of an inherently flawed product or service, the "meditation" pushed by their former Messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These constant arguments over which scholars and journalists are most reliable is unproductive. Essentially all of the printed sources available for this topic are reliable by Wikipedia standards. (And probably most web sources are unreliable.) Melton and Conway/Siegelman, et al., all have viewpoints and none of them are really extraordinary, given the subject. Let's just do our best to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, without negating legitimate sources and viewpoints.    Will Beback    talk    08:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I unequivocally support what Will Beback has proposed – further if other editors are intent upon a battle of source v source then we will have to move immediately to mediation. The appropriation of WP policies to support particular argument are especially unhelpful; the application of ‘exceptional claims’  to a situation where one source differs from five or six sources appears wholly specious, while invoking CESNUR as a ‘representational body’ without acknowledging a comparable contra body such as the ICSA  amounts to POV pushing, even if that is not the intent.  Also  when invoking a particular source, care has to be taken that the scope of that source is relevant to the article under consideration, as opposed to the general subject area. In this respect Galanter says almost nothing about Rawat’s teachings, indeed he hardly even comments upon the meditation; Galanter’s work was focussed on the socialising impacts upon individuals living in the cultic context of the then Divine Light Mission. Galanter is certainly a valid source for other Rawat related articles, but to have relevance to the Teachings article, Galanter’s work would need to be contextualised in relation to what Rawat ‘taught’ in respect of ashrams, festivals or other communal activity – I am not aware of any sources that provide such contextualisation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we're on the same page, and I apologize for getting a bit emotional yesterday. This business of claiming that critical sources are "discredited" in order to censor their observations annoys me quite a bit. There were old newspaper and popular magazine articles that mentioned the multi-paged "ashram application," which made a point of asking about trust funds and possible inheritances. In 1973, the only "teachings" of Maharaj Ji were the meditation techniques and the "mahatma stories" with their uniform messages: "you aren't worthy," "the guru is giving you a discount," "monkeys are pretty stupid," and "Guru Maharaj Ji is just like Jesus (or whomever)." Even now, nothing the Guru says seems to have any real content apart from being a sales pitch for "the Knowledge." There is no intellectual content. Krishnamurti, in his later years, after he abandoned claims to being the new Messiah, at least said things that made sense, such as considering the relationship between desire, in general, and war. Even the claims noted below are highly questionable, as far as any sort of objective observation could be involved. Wowest (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for a feel of the impact of Conway/Siegelman vs Melton on present-day scholarship, cf., , . (That is not to say Conway and Siegelman can't or should not be cited here, btw.)  JN 466  18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's pointless. Wikipedia has a threshold for reliable sources. So long as the sources we're using meet that threshold then the debate over which scholar is cited more often, or whose theories are no longer popular, is a quagmire in which we already wasted countless thousands of words. Enough already.   Will Beback    talk    19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough already of what? I don't think the debate should about popularity of a theory; eather, it should be about the most relevant sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources Pergamino (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy section you link to doesn't mention "relevant", and relevance isn't an issue in this discussion. I don't think any one here is suggesting that any of the sources being used are irrelevant to the topic.   Will Beback    talk    02:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pergamino, you made some major changes to the text without discussion. Since there's no reason given for the changes, which were called "copy-edits", I'm going to restore the previsous version. Among other problems, the material quotes former followers so labeling it "deprogramming" is deceptive and incorrect.   Will Beback    talk    02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other changes were not discussed either. And BTW, either an edit is good or is bad; there is no need to "discuss" everything, is it? Pergamino (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, yes they were. Have you read this thread? The material in question was discussed here. Now you've deleted it entirely, with no apparent reason or explanation. That's disruptive. As for the need to discuss significant changes, please review the headers at the top of this page, and the article probations that I've allerted you to previously. I request that you revert yourself and restore the neutral, sourced, discussed material that you deleted.   Will Beback    talk    05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is "disruptive" is you breaking the rules set forth in the arbitration. You added a section, I edited in good faith to make it better, and you added your version again within five days. I request that you revert yourself and restore the edit I made, and explain what was wrong with it. Pergamino (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The section was already there. Zanthorp removed it because he disagreed with how material was summarized, so I restored the original version which correctly summarized the cited sources. That edit was thoroughly discussed in the thread above. Your edits are your responsibility and the burden is on you to justify them. You didn't and so I restored text. Now you've deleted he text outright and again you've provided no justification for the deletion.   Will Beback    talk    05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You broke the rule "Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period" You did not provide a justification for your deletion of my edits. Pergamino (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is actually very silly. Tell you what: I will undo my deletion, and you will undo your deletion. OK? Pergamino (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the text that we've all previously discussed. Would you like to discuss changes to it?   Will Beback    talk    18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Undo your deletion of my edit, and I will explain it. Otherwise you are in violation of the arbitration rule. Pergamino (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the violation? I reverted once. As for the changes you'd like, you can discuss them before making them. It's more helpful to seek consensus first, especially on a contentious topic.   Will Beback    talk    19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The violation: You added a new section on 16:58, 18 May 2009. I edited that section on  11:20, 23 May 2009. You re-added your section in its entirety on  19:19, 23 May 2009. That is a violation of the rule. Please add my edit back and we can talk. Pergamino (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's only one revert. We can discuss your proposed edits without restoring them. I don't think that holding the discussion hostage to the restoration of your edits is a helpful ploy. Please say why you think that the section should be renamed and re-written to focus on "deprogrammers" rather than on the quoted former followers.   Will Beback    talk    20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The section Will restored was originally edited to death, without consensus or discussion, by a premie in order to prevent the criticism from being read. Will has merely restored what which was improperly censored. Now, what about the current version would you like to change, Mr. or Ms. Pergamino? Wowest (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If Will restores what I edited, which basically was a few copy-edits, the addition of information about Ted Patrick, and a re-arranging of the subheadings, you'll be able to see it for yourself. Pergamino (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes in question are here: . Please explain why they're necessary or how they'd improve the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't play by the rules, why should I? Pergamino (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't correctly identified any rule violations by me. The unfounded accusations are simply derailing an actual discussion of editing this article, and are unhelpful. If you think that I've violated any rule on Wikipedia then I invite you to bring it up in an appropriate venue. Meanwhile, let's stick to discusing improvements to the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine are not unfounded accusations: you broke the rule: "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period". You made a change, I made an edit, and you added the **same** change again. Pergamino (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where was my original change reverted? The only time it was reverted was when you deleted the text I'd added, but you restored that text yourself so that's moot. The only thing I reverted was your undiscussed change. So now let's get back tothe topic at hand - those changes. Please explain why they're necessary or how they'd improve the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read this long thread again, and I can see that there are substantial arguments against the paragraph from Patrick and Conway as added twice by Will over the last 5 days (in violation of the arbitration ruling), so I'd think that putting back what was there originally is the way to go. Pergamino (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why the section you added is necessary, in comparison with the summary that was there before, or how that would improve the article. Pergamino (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For that information please re-read this thread starting with the initial complaint by Zanthorp. This material has been discussed at length. The faulty edits by user:Janice Rowe were made without discussion, and it's too bad that it took us this long to identify the problems and correct them.   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of these discussions if people do not follow the rules? There is no agreement for the content added twice by Will and once by Wowest. See you next week, and I hope that by then you have decided to play by the rules. Pergamino (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to discuss your proposed changes then please do so. You've been invited repeatedly.   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The material has been discussed at length, but I don't see any consensus emerging about it. I will resume discussing this next week, if you don't mind. That way you'll have time to re-consider playing by the rules, and will give other people the opportunity to weigh-in. Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the timeline, please discuss significant changes to this material before making them.   Will Beback    talk    22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't lecture me on behavior: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why don't **you** discuss significant changes before making them, and get some kind of agreement for these changes? Pergamino (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

These "Sources" ....

 * Drury mentions "mystical energy," which is not a term I've ever heard attributed to Rawat. "These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge" is rather questionable." The practices, as presented in 1973, were closer to suppression of all of the "meditator's" thoughts and feelings through intense concentration on the sound of his own breathing, during all waking hours when he was not singing devotional songs to the guru's picture or practicing the other three "techniques."


 * Chryssides alleges "calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine." Critics would call it "intellectual vegetation ... and contentment." There is no evidence either that "the innermost self is identical with the divine," or that tasting "snot" in a non-hypnotic environment leads to an experience of "nectar." Is snot God? "God is everywhere" doesn't seem to be an adequate answer.


 * Hunt parrots "a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full" which somehow fails to explain the observable practices of giving the guru large sums of money and standing in long lines in order to kiss his feet. This was formerly called "darshan," but now gets labeled "reception."

Since there appears to have been a transition in "Rawat's" teachings, there should be an explanation for that. The old "ashram rules," under which many premies lived during the 1970's, precluded eating meat, alcohol, drugs or sex. Asked about the meat back then, Rawat said that the purpose of the meat restriction wasn't to make you more spiritual, but to make you "less aggressive." Also, none of the descriptions of the meditation techniques laid out in the website cited two paragraphs up is like that used in Knowledge Sessions in the early 1970's. Each description is significantly different. Wowest (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These "sources" is what has been used. If you have other sources, list them; otherwise, you are wasting your time as personal opinions (negative or positive) don't count here. Pergamino (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We have plenty of sources available from the 1970s and 1980s that describe the meditation techniques. If those descriptions differ from descriptions in the 2000s then perhaps the techniques have changed, or maybe it's just the way they're described. Either way, we should summarize the sources and present all significant points of view, per WP:V and WP:NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A big help with previous issues has been to collect citations from reliable sources in a sub-page. That makes it easier to assess the field and give appropriate weight to all significant viewpoints. In this case, we're dealing with perhaps two distinguishable aspects of the teachings: the meditation techniques themselves, and the other teachings. Perhaps a separate page for each would work best.   Will Beback    talk    20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes you just made, Will. I'd like to see something about the earlier sources and their descriptions of the meditation techniques. I don't have access to the Detroit newspapers from the summer of 1973. An article there was pretty revealing. Wowest (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The online archievs of the Detroit Free Press don't go back to the 1970s, but there is a microfilm archive at the Detroit public library that covers the period. In the meantime, we can compile sources at /sources.   Will Beback    talk    02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Former Followers section
I think we need to find more information from former followers. Wowest (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sophia Collier would be a good source for her own views of the teachings. Rennie Davis has made statements in the last decade, but I'm not sure any of them are in reliable sources. John MacGregor is another possible source, though I'm not sure if we want to open that can of worms again. Jacobs would be a great secondary source, as he focuses on "deconversion". I'm sure we can expand the section to give a greater variety of viewpoints.   Will Beback    talk    20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Collier has a great description of receiving Knowledge and her views of the teachings in Chapter 9. Chapter 17 also has some reflections and observations. Rudin & Rudin quote another deprogrammed former follower, Barbara Fabe, who also mentions hypnosis. Enroth quotes pages of commentary from Jim Ardmore, another deprogrammed member. McDonald has a very brief mention of the teachings. Jacobs focuses on one couple who eventually left the movement, and their views of the teachings are covered extensively.
 * If we're going to have a "former followers" section then a "current followers" section might be suitable too. Anthony, et al.'s "Patients and Pilgrims" 1978 (in Richardon's Conversion Careers) has several quotations from then-current followers. Levine's Life in the Cults has a lot about the practical teachings and regulations of followers. Galanter also discusses the views of followers in Cults: Faith Healing, and Coercion. And of course Downton has lengthy interviews with four different followers.    Will Beback    talk    23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a committed libertarian I welcome Wowest's participation, even though I usually disagree his views when I know enough about them to have an opinion. I also welcome Nik and Will Beback's participation, and if any of Mr Rawat's followers would like to participate they too would of course be very welcome. But when it comes to insertion of POV into this or any other article, and the flouting of Wikipedia's policies as a means of doing so, that's where I draw the line.

Will Beback was admonished for his behavior by the recent ARBCOM. Now that its over, is he reverting to the behavior that earned him that admonition? I hope not. "... from Rawat's cult..." is not acceptable because it is derogatory. A neutral expression would be, "...from the DLM..." Anyway, Ted Patrick's book is a questionable source[], therefore, material from it is unsuitable for use in this article.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

The Marcia Carroll quote is not "seconded by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman..." The C and S quote from an unnamed former follower mentions nothing about "self-hypnosis", it being "painful to think" or "whatever they tell you, you do..." At first glance there appears to be a possible correlation between inability to maintain a train of thought and being less able to reason. But in fact, if you read C and S quote carefully it is obvious that its about the trauma resulting from deprogramming. Even if it is interpreted as some kind of reference to dysfunction resulting from meditation, it is presented in a non-neutrality way because it is made to look more credible than it is.[] No mention is made of research showing that reported dysfunction in such cases correlated to sustained physical and mental abuse at the hands of deprogrammers, not the former cult or group or whatever. And there's nothing in it to tell readers that C and S were widely discredited. If it is decided to go ahead and include it in the article, to overcome the problem of undue weight[], we should add quotes from practitioners of the meditation. Its interesting. The undue weight section talks about flat earth theories, and C and S have about that much credibility.

Will and Wowest, please read the quote from C and S more carefully. You will see that it refers not to the meditation, but to the trauma associated with being deprogrammed - forced detention, sleep and food depravation, physical and mental abuse and so on. It confirms the research of psychologists Lewis and Bromley, cited in Melton.

"after my deprogramming, it took several weeks before I was able to maintain a train of thought and make two sentences go together without having the whole thing erased."

The next bit might be about using the meditation as some sort of defense mechanism but the meaning is not clear. Not surprising after such an ordeal. "Meditation had become a conditioned response. My mind just kept doing it automatically."

Nik mentioned having a platform for discussion. Wouldn't it be better to use this page for that instead of the article? IMO, if we discuss and develop new material here, there is a lot less chance of it being reverted after it goes in the article. Personally I think that would be a more pleasant and professional way to proceed. For all of the reasons I've given here I have reluctantly decided to delete the former followers section. I hope that from now on we can discuss such contentious additions civilly here on this page to produce something neutral, properly sourced and worthy of inclusion in the article. --Zanthorp 10:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)
 * Zanthorp, you advocate discussion yet you've twice deleted entire sections before discussing them. I don't see you proposing alternative text to replace the text you deleted. Please do so, or restore the text pending a new version. As it stands now the article is missing an important set of viewpoints and unless those are reflected then the article does not comply with WP:NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, to correct Zanthorp's mataken characterization oft he RfAR: I was admonished about edit warring. I have not edit-warred since that finding. Please avoid making personal remarks on this page.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Patrick's book, please explain why it is questionable.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=290830285&oldid=289629502
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=291928410&oldid=291851722

Not only you did "edit-warred", you broke the rule that calls you not to do the same changes more than once in a period of seven days. And if you were admonished, you should be even more careful. Pergamino (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, these are not "personal remakrs", but facts, and I'd hope you would accept them and demonstrate that you intend to follow basic rules. Otherwise, there's no point in these debates, is there? Pergamino (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of this page, and the sole topic that's relevant, are improvements to this article. If you'd like to discuss me, I have a talk page for that purpose. It's beginning to appear that some folks here are more interested in stoking drama and conflict than in suggesting edits to the article. I hope I'll be proven wrong. Can you suggest a replacement for the text that you and Zanthorp has repeatedly deleted?   Will Beback    talk    23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You inserted your edit despite opposition to your idea. I then made a suggested edit and you deleted it summarily by saying that it was "undiscussed" and replaced it again with your edit again despite a ruling on this page. Is that your idea of a discussion? Because if that is the case, I'm not interested in wasting my time. Pergamino (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making anyone edit this article. But anyone who wants to edit the article must participate in discussions.   Will Beback    talk    04:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making anyone edit this article, but somebody is making it really difficult. In particular when that somebody ignores disagreement, and ignores rules set forth to encourage discussion. Pergamino (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright Will, I am quite happy not to discuss you. Please note the strike out applied to that small section of my previous post. I will make no further mention of it in these discussion pages.

I have explained in detail above why I deleted the POV laden, factually incorrect former followers material that you inserted into the article. You claim that it contained important viewpoints. I disagree. You have asked why Patrick's book is a questionable source.

From questionable sources[] "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" are questionable sources.

In a nutshell, Patrick is a questionable source because his views are widely acknowledged as extremist and they rely largely on personal opinions. Any opinion in support of his activities, Singer, C and S for example, has been discredited as we have already seen. I think it is also reasonable to argue that his book is promotional in nature. For example, There are recorded accounts of people hiring him after reading it.

In an effort to help you understand just how extreme Patrick's views really are I have edited and compiled for you just a few of the many examples of warnings and various accounts of his activities. Please note the reference to "extremist circles" in the first of these accounts. Please take a few minutes to read them.

"Ted Patrick, the “father” of deprogramming and thrice-convicted felon, typifies the former Cult Awareness Network “deprogrammer” - prone to violence, scornful of the rights and beliefs of others, and willing to do anything for a price.

Patrick worked to make kidnapping and assault appear socially acceptable. As long as the crime was directed against individuals whose beliefs could be made to seem odd or unusual to the rest of society, any common thug could earn substantial sums simply by billing himself a “deprogrammer.”

Patrick has admitted that deprogramming:

“may be said to involve kidnapping at the very least, quite often assault and battery, almost invariably conspiracy to commit a crime and illegal restraint.”

Patrick has asserted that religions recruit members by hypnotizing them on the spot with “beams” emanating from the knees and elbows and other parts of the body. This to Patrick classified a potential victim as a “mindless robot” and fair game for violent tactics. When once reminded that such tactics violate constitutional protections of the First Amendment, Patrick retorted by describing freedom of religion as:

“one of the biggest rackets the world has ever known.”

Patrick’s career has earned him a string of criminal indictments stretching from San Diego to New York. The charges range from kidnapping to violent abduction and sexual assault, including rape.

Brute force is the hallmark of Patrick’s kidnappings. In a book defending his violent techniques, Patrick described the kidnapping of a Christian who resisted abduction by bracing himself against Patrick’s getaway car. Patrick forced the man into the car by squeezing his genitals until he let out a howl and doubled up in pain.

“Then I hit,” Patrick wrote, “shoving him head first into the back seat of the car and piling in on top of him.”

He described another abduction:

“Joe and Goose both had a hold of Ronnie … so I started on the other guys, you know, Maceing them, hitting, whatever. The Mace didn’t really work. I mean it worked, but they kept fighting. I’d spray somebody and then they were still kicking and I had to just kick them back.” Court papers filed in Massachusetts show that Patrick assaulted a man with a straight-edged razor during an abduction while, by Patrick’s own accounts, other abductions have utilized kicks, punches and other forms of violence.

In Ohio, Patrick and several others were indicted after abducting a 20-year-old woman and taking her to Alabama, where she was repeatedly raped over the course of the seven-day “deprogramming.” Patrick announced afterward that he was giving up deprogramming. At the time of the Ohio abduction, Patrick was on probation for abducting a Tucson waitress; his probation was revoked after it was learned he had accepted several thousand dollars for the “deprogramming” of the Ohio woman, and he served a year in jail.

One of Patrick’s attacks, an unsuccessful deprogramming attempt on a Catholic nun in Canada, resulted in an official government prohibition against Patrick entering Canada. Ignoring this, Patrick slipped back and forth across the border numerous times to continue his career in Canada as a kidnapper-for-hire, eventually assaulting more than 50 people in that country.

Patrick, who received up to $15,000 plus $250 per day expenses for a single deprogramming, used violence not only to change individuals’ religious beliefs but their political persuasions and even their sexual orientation. In one case, Patrick resorted to rape in an attempted deprogramming of a woman who was a lesbian.

Government prosecutors, wise to Patrick’s lifestyle of violence and force, have jailed him repeatedly on numerous charges, with three felony convictions. Yet, in extremist circles, Patrick and his methods are still considered worth emulating. Apart from his deprogramming activities, Patrick’s criminal record includes charges of cocaine use and parole violations."

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/ted-patrick/

Numerous testimonies by those who were subjected to a deprogramming describe how they were threatened with a gun, beaten, denied sleep and food and/or sexually assaulted (Barker 1989; Kilbourne and Richardson 1982). But one does not have to rely on the victims for stories of violence: Ted Patrick, one of the most notorious deprogrammers used by CAGs (who has spent several terms in prison for his exploits) openly boasts about some of the violence he employed (Patrick 1976)Watching for Violence A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups Eileen Barker

http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/barker.htm

My first encounter with the extent and power of the cult fear in America was as a spectator in a Santa Monica courtroom in June 1981. I watched a family tragedy unfold as a young woman, Rebecca Foster, testified to the physical and psychological abuse she underwent at the hands of deprogrammer Ted Patrick during his kidnapping, false imprisonment, and forced deprogramming of her.

Only later, when I read juror-interviews that talked of Rebecca's zombie-like state and her 'robot' appearance on the witness stand, did I begin to realise why they had refused to believe her testimony. The foreman of the Foster jury said after the trial, 'Her testimony was quite plastic. She was like a puppet with strings being pulled by someone else.' In a similar fashion one cannot believe the testimony of witches. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and the PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR: THE HARE KRISHNAS ON TRIAL. Shinn, Larry D. USA Today Magazine; Jan90, Vol. 118 Issue 2536, p90-9   --Zanthorp 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


 * Religiousfreedomwatch is a Scientology site. Nothing against Scientology, but that is certainly a fringe source. However, the scholars you quote are okay, and I agree Patrick is an unsavoury source.  JN 466  15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here more on Patrick from some more reliable sources:
 * Cults and new religious movements, American Psychiatric Publishing
 * Exploring new religions, Continuum International Publishing Group
 * Agents of discord, Transaction Publishers
 * Regulating religion, Springer  JN 466  16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources that say Patrick is an unreliable source? That's the issue here. According to whom were Conway and Seligman "widely discredited"? Lastly, what are we proposing as a replacement for the deleted text? Is it asserted that only current members may be quoted about the topic? If so that would violate WP:NPOV. Since this is an ongoing dispute over NPOV, I'll apply the relevant tag until we settle this. (Also, I'd ask Znthorp to format his postings to set quotations off from this own writing - it's hard to follow these long blocks of text).   Will Beback    talk    21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous statements to that effect in the above-linked sources. For example, – I think these do enough to indicate that we are not talking about a reputable and respected mainstream researcher applying standard scientific methods.  JN 466  11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cults and new religious movements, p. 240, "deprogramming is a lay procedure [...[ lay deprogramming is often done in a hotel room or isolated site which can be secured against anticipated escape attempts (i.e., one may be on the second floor with windows nailed shut, all doors locked, and telephone removed) [...] Anecdotal stories [...] including the use of sexual partners (for celibate cult members) and drugs (alcohol) to lessen their resistance [...] alleged use of guard dogs and shotgun-at-the-chin techniques designed to more directly instill fear";
 * Exploring New Religions, p. 347–348, "Deprogrammers' techniques are not subtle, but then they are not experts in Religious Studies [...] [Their] brainwashing theory receives little credence in academic circles, and hence the counter-cultists rely on the evidence of a small minority of psychiatrists who support mind control theories [...] Deprogramming is of course illegal";
 * Agents of Discord, p. 61–62, "In what other line of work could a person, virtually untrained in the disciplines of human behavior, personality or attitudes, earn large cash fees by abducting and confining legal adults while escaping criminal prosecution? Ted Patrick, orchestrator of the first deprogrammings, is a good case in point [...] over the years, Patrick held a succession of relatively unskilled and manual jobs (such as an undertaker's assistant, barber, truck driver, chef, chauffeur and gambling numbers runner)";
 * Regulating Religion, p. 12, "Eventually deprogramming was defined as illegal by virtue of some key court cases, as violative of the Constitutional rights of the of-age NRM members, and the pseudoscientific "brainwashing" concept was ruled not to be scientifically based and was thus inadmissible as evidence in the various types of "cult/brainwashing" cases.".


 * Wonderful irony that the sectionalist Shupe (anti antiCult) should choose to disparage deprogrammers on the basis that they are/were "virtually untrained in the disciplines of human behavior, personality or attitudes" and Patrick in particular because he was 'blue collar', yet Shupe has consistently sided with the freedom of cult leaders who universally are "untrained in the disciplines of human behavior, personality or attitudes" to deliver snake oil psychology under the guise of religious freedom. If one is going to invoke Shupe and Richardson, then their highly sectionalist views have to be balanced with other references - even those recorded by mere truck drivers where the reference is to a quote of an involved person about their experience of the article subject. On balance and with reference to the Arbitratin decision ( A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.) I don't believe that the current form of this article is sustainable hence the proposal below. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to comment on the article's state in general, it should be clear that the person whose comment you wish to quote went through a coercive process of the kind described in the above sources.  JN 466  12:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But which "coercive process" ? the one ascribed to the deprogrammers by the anti-anticultists or the one ascribed to cult indoctrination by (in the description of anti-anticultists) the anticultists. Your proposition is that someone who has been deprogrammed can not have a valid voice because they've been through (according to a sectionalist perspective) a "coercive process". So where does that leave the un-deprogrammed follower/adherent/member of a cult/NRM who according to another sectional perspective has also gone through a "coercive process" ? The reality is that there is a sectionalist group of academics who both claim insight into the legitimacy of NRM practices, and who also deny the legitimacy of apostate testimony. Those academics will never publish in terms that allow validity, the views of those that they class as apostates, as to do so is inimical to their (the academics) functional paradigm. FWIW, my own view is that both sides of the pool have been tainted and very careful use has to be made of academic opinion (as opposed to the reporting of verifiable research)in constructing an encyclopedic article - what isn't tolerable is according one side validity without acknowledging the existence of the other.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though they may be in a minority, there are reputable academics who rely on apostate testimony, such as Stephen A. Kent. Van der Lans is another name that comes to mind in relation to Rawat. The way to present this dispute and to achieve NPOV is to include such scholars. It is not to cite people like Patrick.  JN 466  17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik, you may have a point about Schupe, but you seem to be immersed in the legitimacy of NRMs, apostate testimony and so on to the point where you are unable to see the larger picture. This is a civil liberties issue. We are discussing violation of constitutional rights by a convicted criminal, Ted Patrick - kidnapping, assault, rape. His views are extremist by any objective measure and widely regarded as such. He and his book, an attempt at justifying his criminality, are therefore questionable sources[]and for that reason cannot be used as sources for this article. Its that simple. What can I do to help you see this? Zanthorp 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not so concerned about Patrick in particular, but I am concerned that we continue to include the views of former followers. I don't see any alternatives being proposed. I listed some sources that discuss former follower's views. I don't see why we can't include those.   Will Beback    talk    05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Useful Source
from Gallagher/Ashcraft, Greenwood Publishing, section written by Ron Geaves. Note: Geaves was one of Rawat's earliest disciples. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that useful - gets the subject's birthdate wrong - wrong year ! and get's the name of the author of Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj wrong. And that's just from a quick scan. For my criticism of Geaves' other writings about Rawat see  --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for split and merger
As we now have the article frozen because of editor behaviour, I’m going to take this opportunity to propose a timely split and merger.

Fundamental Problems with the current article
Wikipedia only has five other article titles that use the construction “teachings of” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Cormac   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Ellen_G._White http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Ayurveda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Joseph_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Falun_Gong there is also  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_and_impacts_of_Ayyavazhi

A commonality of these articles is that they refer unequivocally to something that is ‘taught’ and describe what is taught in detail – the use of the word teaching in each of these article titles is clearly as a ‘noun’ and accords to the common dictionary meaning of ‘teaching as “something taught” which  is variously  identified as a synonym of ‘precept’, ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’. Currently Wikipedia only has a redirect on “Teaching” which is to the wholly unreferenced article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher which does not offer us much help. In any case it is clear that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat does not as it stands, elucidate what should be its core purpose which must logically be “to describe what it is that Prem Rawat teaches”. And in the common dictionary meaning that requires identification of ‘precept’, ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’.

The current Teachings of Prem Rawat article has a range of academic opinion about (a) the philosophical and religious background to the belief system within which Rawat previously expounded (Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428 "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj."), and (b)the context to which Rawat relates his current operative philosophy. The former belong most properly in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Hans_Ji_Maharaj and only require limited reprise in the main Prem Rawat article. The (b) material does not of itself comprise anything which describes any kind of  'precept’, ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’,  it maybe that this material does demand a separate article but it isn’t sufficient for the current article title, quite simply there’s nothing there that amounts to a description of a ‘Teaching’.

Although not precisely WP:SYN the article as it stands is a ‘synthesis’ that advances a confused perspective, with the various sources cobbled together to create a whole that is virtual fiction. The use of Galanter is a good example; Galanter says nothing about what Rawat teaches and his term of reference in his research was the psycho-social behaviour of Divine Light Mission ‘members’, not of Rawat nor his ‘teaching’. Galanter refers to how ‘members’ use the meditation, but as there is no differential comparison with alternate meditational practices (or any other reputed stress relievers – smoking, sex, eating ? ) Galanter offers no insight into what Rawat teaches, only how some DLM members were living at a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Hunt and Downton present further aspects of a confused synthesis. Hunt writes about “a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full”, yet nowhere can anyone identify what that ‘system’ is. Hunt’s assessment of the operative philosophy of Rawat’s followers may well be valid, but it isn’t an exposition of what is ‘taught’. Downton, (whose study of the US DLM is historically restricted and notably does not encompass the post 1982 period when Rawat is said by other sources to have rejected the ‘Indian context’) is quoted on the meditation experience as “It was an experience-which sages have spoken about throughout history-of the oneness of life.” Again Downton’s opinion of the religious experience he accords to meditators may be valid in terms of recording a history of DLM members but it clearly demonstrates a profound philosophical bias on Downton’s part which is unsupported by any external references. And again it says nothing about what Rawat teaches because, as with Galanter, there is no differential comparison with other meditational practices which might also produce similar effects in meditators.

Split and Merge Options

 * 1. Material relevant to Shri_Hans_Ji_Maharaj should be merged there.


 * 2. The two sections Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat and Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat should be merged into the main Rawat article, replacing the bulk of the section Prem_Rawat


 * 3. Material specific to studies of Divine Light Mission and DLM members merged at Divine_Light_Mission

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. The remaining material, if it is deemed worthy of retention, should become a “philosophy and beliefs” article.


 * (I reformatted your links to make them easier to read).   Will Beback    talk    05:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To discuss another possible option, I suggest that the "Techniques of Knowledge" topic should be split off into a separate article of its own. The meditation techniques are not unique to Prem Rawat, Hans Ji Rawat, (maybe even Satpal), and others in closely related Indian spiritual traditions. And much of the reportng on Prem Rawat's teachings concern his public statements, rarely mention Knowledge anymore. Further, there's no record of the techniques Knowledge changing, unlike other aspects of Rawat's teachings, so having a separate article would avoid repetition between Rawat and DLM articles. An article on the topic could be categorized under meditation. We can do that as a spin-off regardless of the other aspects of the split and merge options.   Will Beback    talk    06:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Split and Merge proposal
(RfC on Split and Merge proposal ) to address misnamed article and misapplied content. This concerns an article under the scope of Arbcom decision. Discussion of the Arbcom case identified the desirability of involving previously uninvolved editors in the improvement of the articles concerned. The article is titled Teachings of Prem Rawat, however despite a significant amount of referenced text there is little elucidation of what the putative teachings may actually consist of. An AfD seems inappropriate and other articles already exist where the same content can already be found or where it could usefully be included. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have previously contributed to articles related to Rawat, and their respective talk pages. This said, I have long felt that there is really no good reason to separate the description of Rawat's teachings from his biography. Moreover, I have felt that the very scant description of his teachings that is given in his biography falls short of the broad coverage expected of a good article. I am in agreement with most of Nik's other points. Therefore, I support the proposal to merge this content into the Prem Rawat bio, the DLM article and the article on Rawat's father (although there should be a short reprise of the teaching's historic origin in the Rawat bio as well).  JN 466  18:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick says: "with the various sources cobbled together to create a whole that is virtual fiction" - Basically what you are saying is that this page presents what people have written on the subject, but in your opinion it is fiction. But then, what can you do? You can say the same about 10,000 articles in wikipedia. Pergamino (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Without actually seeing how this "merger" will happen, I'm unable to comment any further. Basically, I don't see how can you merge such a long article into the Rawat bio, and I don't necessarily agree with Nick rationale for deleting entire passages just because he doesn't agree with the scholars quoted. Pergamino (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are basic problems with this article and the topic it tries to define. One of the problems is that it tries to deal with several different things as if they were one. First, it's claimed that the meditation techniques, "Knowledge", are not unique to Rawat and were inherited from previous teachers. Some or all of them are possibly taught by other teachers in the same tradition. Second, many of the teachings are directly attributable to Hans Ji. Third, many of the teachings are associated with the Divine Light Mission, which featured thousands of mahatmas who were directly responsible for teachig initiates and whose teachings may not have always been consistent with the messages from Rawat himself. And lastly there are the philosophical or spiritual teachings of Rawat in the post-DLM era.
 * At one time this material was covered in more or less three articles: Techniques of Knowledge, Past teachings of Prem Rawat, and Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Those articles were mostly combined by user:Rumiton and user:Jossi without input from non-followers, and it's possible that more neutral editors would not have made the same choices. It may be worthwhile to review the earlier versions of those articles to make sure that nothing important has been lost.
 * The current article is in need of either a dissection as proposed by Nik, or a complete rewrite. We discussed rewriting the article last year, but there were so many other pending tasks that it was a low priority. So I endorse the broad outlines of Nik's proposal, but if there's no consensus for that then the other alternative is to start over with this article.   Will Beback    talk    23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the main article, the biography, is quite long enough as is. Incorporating the teachings into it would render it far to long. Better to retain a separate teachings article where the subject can be given full coverage. I have no objection to a rewrite of the teachings article as long as it is a genuine improvement on what we already have. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on OSHO, a comparable figure, is over twice as long (8800 words versus 4000 for Rawat) and it includes everything about his teachings with no separate article. This article is only 2500 words long, so even if it was copied in its entirety to the biography (which is not the proposal), the biography would still be significantly shorter than the Osho article. The Rawat bio already has a section of at least 200 words on the teachings, and a sizable chunk of this aricle would go to the Hans Ji or DLM articles, so it's likely that less than 2000 words would be added to the Rawat bio, making it about 6000 words. Since that's not excessively large, the size issue alone does not seem to be a compelling argument against this proposal.   Will Beback    talk    04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the article, I see another reason to reconfigure the material. A lot of the sources are discussing both Rawat and his beliefs, so it's hard to split them up. So there's already a lot of repetition between the two articles. For example, Momento insists on having an talk Rawat gave in Boston mentioned in both articles. Also much of the history is repeated. By merging the Rawat specific parts of them, I think we could cut own on that repetition.   Will Beback    talk    05:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A 4000 word article is lengthy. The average magazine article, for example, isn't that long. The topic of article length for print media vs the internet is generating a fair bit of research and discussion these days. Optimum article length for net articles is around 500 to 600 words, and you will see that's the case if you read articles on this topic. The reason is that reader attention span is generally a lot less for net articles than it is for print media articles. Readers tend to become impatient with long net articles, lose interest and go elsewhere. I found that to be the case when I first checked out the Rawat article. I got about a quarter of the way through it and couldn't be bothered reading the rest. That was partly because the article was so badly written at the time. It has been improved a lot since then, even so, the lede is a mess, IMO, and I would be willing to bet that a lot of readers wouldn't get much past that. Consider also that there seems to be a vast difference between most net users and committed Wikipedia editors such as yourself. The average net user tends to want info quickly, and their patience is limited. Increasing the length of the main Rawat article is a waste of time because few readers will bother reading all of it. Far better to keep the main article and teaching articles separate. If you want to cut down on repetition, wouldn't it be better to look at content relevance? --Zanthorp (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haikus are 17 syllables. but we're not here to write haikus. We're here to write encyclopedia articles. WP hardly has a single featured article with fewer then 4000 words, so the suggestion that 600 words is ideal is inconsistent with community standards. We've only just added a fact that to Prem Rawat which appears in other short biographies, so I'm sure we'd all agree that that article is still a work in progress. But getting back to this article and this RFC, Nik has proposed a set of splits and merges. Aside from the material to the Rawat bio, does anyone have a reason to oppose splitting the "techniques of knowledge" out from this article?    Will Beback    talk    05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Having offered a detailed proposition I was going to wait until there were some outside comments before responding – hopefully non involved editors will be prepared to comment at some point, however the argument that Willbeback makes regarding a separate Techniques of Knowledge article is based on faultless logic – notably the point about the ‘lack of uniqueness’; this makes my specific proposition to merge the ToK section into the Rawat biography, redundant. The link between the ToK and Satpal is significant and the lack of a WP article on Satpal is a serious omission, particularly as he has just been re-elected to the Indian parliament which surely answers any concern about notability. I don’t currently have the time to create a Satpal article but perhaps someone could start a stub ?   In any case I can see no reason that a ToK article as outlined by Will should not be created ASAP.


 * Whether a separate teachings of Prem Rawat article is to remain without the ToK elements, or as a section in the Rawat bio, the question of what is the “teaching” still has to be answered. As I’ve argued “teaching” has a specific meaning and its use in an encyclopaedia should conform to an accepted dictionary definition – if something akin to precept’, ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’ can not be identified within the available sources then some other title must be used.


 * Zanthorp’s argument about article length is not referenced to Wikiedia rules or guideline so I don’t see how that helps at all. The current article arrangement has not been based on any overall logic and rather represents an ad hoc response to years of POV pushing and edit warring than to a consistent approach in providing an integrated treatment of related subjects. If one large article produces a better encyclopaedic treatment that is what we should go for, defending the status quo on some notion of reader attraction does not address the structural problems that exist.


 * Pergamino’s responses seem doubly unhelpful. For the record I have not disputed any of the sources per se, (although I certainly can find fault with Geaves), but what I am arguing for is a structural change based on semantic consistency and simple logic – that is that “normal meaning should apply and that false synthesis should be avoided” – these seem to me to be basic WP principles. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec and added commnets)I have read the bio, and all the material which would be relevant to the bio is already there. One issue here is the inclusion of material which is already in the bio and which does not reasonably belong in this article -- if the article is about the teachings, then that should delimit the focus of the article, along with any issue regarding uniqueness of those teachings. The issue should not be one of "merge" but one of actual reasonable editing of this material into a form which serves the readers, and following the strictures of WP:BLP. I am gradually working on an article which started out at close to 40,000 words, so 4,000 words seems quite short in comparison :). Once we prune what does not belong, then we can add material on the teachings. As to what "teachings" are, I would suggest that there appear two or more areas -- the "Knowledge" and what is contained in it, the format of his practices (including Hindu practices at the ashrams etc.) and later non-Hindu practices, and the material in his formal presentations (including, if we can find them, examples of his usage of examples from other religions).  And we again should be careful (for one example) about using partially-loaded words such as "claims" in order to be quite even-handed.  Collect (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly the meditation is something 'taught' but with authors such as Juergensmeyer and Rife placing it as a practice within a wider religious context and Satpal Maharaj claiming that the Knowledge is his inheritance from his Guru father (but revealing the practical experience of 'Knowledge' ('atmagyan') which is at the heart of all religions. ) how can the meditation techniques promoted by Rawat be treated encyclopaedically as being unique to Prem Rawat ? And beyond that what is there that meets the test of being, or amounting to a precept’ or a ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’ ? It is true that academics like Juergensmeyer talk about a teaching but that is most frequently referenced to  the Divine Light Mission, not to Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaj Ji. If the test of meaning of "Teaching" is set so low as to encompass the collected espousals of an individual, then Wikipedia might reasonably also have a "Teachings of Homer Simpson" article. If Prem Rawat didn't or doesn't present some identifiable precept’ or a ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’ which is unique to him, beyond the mere communication of the mechanics of four (commonly available) meditation techniques then he can not be said, in any reasoned sense, to have a teaching. In which case what happens to this article ?  --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) I had thought "teacher" was fundamental to the concept of "guru" as a teacher or guide in matters spiritual. Is he a teacher or guide in matters spiritual? Collect (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik, I don't see how one large article can necessarily produce better encyclopaedic treatment of related topics, and what would be the point of it anyway if few people take the time and trouble to read more than half of it? The point that I've tried to make is that a well written article that is kept as short and concise as possible is preferable to one that is convoluted and bloated. I'm pretty sure you will find something related to that notion amongst Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't see how Sat pal's reelection to the Indian parliament is relevant to the Prem R articles. Are you saying that his teachings, if any, are the same as Rawat's, or that the meditation SP teaches, if any, is identical to the PR version? If so do you have any reliable source to back that up? --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The techniques of Knowledge are part of the teachings of the Divine Light Mission. They were before Prem Rawat became its head and there's no evfidence that the DLM stopped teaching the techniques after Prem Rawat was no longer the head of the Indian branch.   Will Beback    talk    02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. If there's a schism in a religion, the splits usually claim "ownership" of the original teachings and philosophy. That doesn't stop you from having articles about them, each one with their own sources. For example East-West_Schism which explains the schism into the Eastern_Orthodox_Church and the Roman_Catholic_Church. Pergamino (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have numerous sources on the teachings of the DLM. I'm not aware of any that describe a rift based on theological issues. Every source I've seen concerns the personal issues within the Holy Family.   Will Beback    talk    03:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem not to be knowledgeable on the subject of religion. Schisms happen for many reasons, theological differences is only one of them and usually not the main reason. Pergamino (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are many reasons for many things, but we have sources for this split being due the personal issues, not theological issues.   Will Beback    talk    04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What? You are the one making an argument about theology, not me. My argument is that there's no reason why not to have articles about schisms or splits, each one with their own sources, as there are always differences in splinter groups. Pergamino (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have many sources for the teachings of the DLM. I'm not sure why you're asserting that the Indian branch had different teachings than other branches. But if you have sources for it then we can add that information to one of the aticles.   Will Beback    talk    04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)


 * Schism: Pergamino may have point, though we need to be clear in which article(s) the locus of the description of schism belongs and I’m not sure that Pargamino is making adequate distinction between Prem Rawat and the other elements of the religious edifice that sprang from the formulation achieved by Hans Rawat. Derks and Lans have this to say:


 * These changes in membership characteristics coincided with organizational and ideological changes within the movement (which are extensively described in Downton, 1979: 185 210). After 1975 the movement appealed to a different kind of person, because it came to emphasize other elements in its ideology. The pre 1975 members had joined the movement because they had been attracted by Divine Light Mission’s Hinduistic ideology that offered them an opportunity to legitimate their already existing rejection of the Western utilitarian world view. However, in 1975 there was a schism within the movement. Guru Maharaj Ji’s mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement’s leader. The American and European adherents did not accept his dismissal and remained faithful to him. The movement split up into an Eastern and Western branch. The Western branch tried to smother its Hinduistic background and started to emphasize Guru Maharaj Ji as a personification of ideology. This change in ideology may be illustrated by the fact that since then, Guru Maharaj Ji’s father, Shri Hans, the movement’s founder, became less important and was much less referred to in the movement’s journal. It may further be illustrated by the differences in initiation policy before and after 1975. Before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for “Knowledge” (in the sense Divine Light Mission uses this term); after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour in order to become a member. Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. edited by Eileen Barker,: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0


 * The question that WP editors have to address is whether a treatment of this schism belongs primarily in an organisational context i.e Divine Light Mission or in the purview of Prem Rawat and Satal Maharaj related articles. Willbeback has offered logical arguments that support the former and I can not see any error in that logic.


 * Guru: Collect asks about the inherent role of Guru. The WP article Guru is helpful in a broad sense, however it is important to note that the term is used widely in numerous language and cultural contexts and there is no absolute requirement that a ‘Guru’ must have a ‘teaching’ by which she/he abides or requires conformation to. (At least I’ve never seen any resource that claims this to be the case and I doubt we will find a source that actually states the negative in a cross cultural and cross language context). Essentially each case (Guru) has to be taken on its own merits and the test is what the sources say in each case. In dealing with Guruism we are not in the same territory as say an RC Priest or a Judaic Rabbi where in each case there would be an expected set of established references – Bible, Tora etc and a series of expected, or even legally regulated behaviours. Further in the very specific sense as applied to Hans Rawat and subsequently, Prem Rawat and Satpal Maharaj, the terminology used is  Satguru which confers a very different role from that of mere Guru.


 * Key point: Collect specifically asks – “ Is he [Prem Rawat] a teacher or guide in matters spiritual?” This is what we have to answer from the sources available and identify what is taught and what is the nature of the guidance given. From my reading of the sources I can not see any thing that amounts to a ‘teaching’ or an identifiable action of guidance (I accept that some of his [Prem Rawat’s] followers report ‘teaching and guidance’ being delivered, but I challenge anyone to find a source that says what that amounts to). This absence does not apply to Hans Rawat where a teaching is indeed readily identifiable in terms of ‘precept’, ‘doctrine’, or ‘instruction’ see Hans Yog Prakosh and Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj  and can also be seen in the website of Sapal Maharaj.


 * The Knowledge: Zanthorp asks about sources that definitively say that what Satpal teaches as a meditation is precisely what Prem Rawat commends as a meditation ? If we are to carry on with the fiction that the four techniques are secret, there obviously can not be such a source and we are left with pronouncements from the two parties. Both use the term Knowledge (capital K) and both share the same father and Satguru, both have claimed aspiritual inheritence from the father (all this is sourced), so while we may not be able to say they "teach the same meditation techniques" the commonality between to the two can be simply stated without any editorialising whatsoever. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Techniques of Knowledge
I propose to restore Techniques of Knowledge to the version prior to it redirecting to this article. 16:58, September 14, 2007 That article covers that topic in more detail than is here, and it would result in this article being shorter. Much of the material in that article does not appear in tihs article, but what there is in this article could be summarized more briefly. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unsure -- there is not a lot of meat, so to speak, in this article, in any case. I think we might be better off, in the long run,  pruning this one down rather than emitting more articles. Collect (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of "meat" in Techniques of Knowledge, which dealt with a well-defined topic. Removing that topic from this article would certainly prune down this article. Is there a specific objection?   Will Beback    talk    22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really -- just that the remainder of this article will be almost a stub :). Collect (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubs are OK.   Will Beback    talk    22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's material there which is not here, I'd say wait until this page is unlocked and add it here. I'm still unconvinced that a split is needed. Pergamino (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific, policy based objection to it?   Will Beback    talk    03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a "policy based argument" for your proposal? Pergamino (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are several reasons for this proposal. Zanthorp has complained that this article is too long. The "ToK" material is common to several articles and so would be more appropriate to split out. The original merger was poorly done and without proper discussion. Now, do you have any specific objection?   Will Beback    talk    04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I did not complain that this article is too long. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Word limits of 500 to 600 words are favored by many web designers due to the attention span of net surfers generally. Obviously that's not a realistic length for these articles. My point was that articles should be kept as short and concise as possible, and I was referring to the Rawat biography [] at around 4000 words or 67kb, not this article which is only 38kb. Adding material to the biography from this article would not produce a better article for reasons that I have already explained. Perhaps I have missed something here. ToK = the knowledge techniques or meditations, right? Isn't that a core part of Rawat's teachings? Most of the article seems relevant. I don't know why the proposed split is necessary. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "split" is even the right term, since relatively little material from that article is still in this article. Do you have any specific objection to restoring the page?   Will Beback    talk    08:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. This page is relatively well-written and a good overview of the purported teachings, techniques, it's history, etc. I have proposed to wait until the page is unlocked and copy into it any good material from the ToK page that is missing. Pergamino (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But I don't see you providing any reason not to do it. Since this page is locked, for who knows how long, I'm going to go ahead and recreate the original page. It can be developed further, I believe, since there are additional sources for some aspects. After the article is unlocked we can decide how to best summarize the ToK article, or even whether to merge it back in. In the meantime the relatively short treatment in this article can be the summary. That way we're not just waiting here for unprotection without being able to improve the contents.   Will Beback    talk    19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a reason to do this, and there is substantial opposition to your idea. Pergamino (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any substantial opposition. You've said you like this article the way it is, and I'm not proposing making any immediate changes to this article. Let's go ahead and do it and see how it works out. We can always merge it back in here later. There's certainly no harm in having more information.   Will Beback    talk    20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I would like to know what your proposed recreation will produce before you go ahead with it. Lets reach consensus first, not risk starting another edit war producing another locked article because editors are unhappy with the it. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said at the beginning of the thread, my proposal is to restore Techniques of Knowledge as of 16:58, September 14, 2007. It can be developed further from there. I haven't seen anyone offer a policy reason not to do so. If there's a consensus to merge the material into this article then we can act on that when the time comes.   Will Beback    talk    04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't a policy reason why to do it or why not to do it. Basically, if there is material there that needs to be added here, it can be done once the page is unlocked. I'm going to be busy for a while, so if your hands are itching for some editing, you can give a hand in Phaistos Disc and get all the references into one format. Pergamino (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to very closely compare the 2 versions of the TOK article. There seem to be only minor differences in content though. I don't think it matters which version is used. If you want to get this article unlocked and add material from TOK, I have no objection. I will also be busy for a few days - won't get much of a chance to contribute until next week. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "ToK" is a much better defined topic than "Teachings", and includes how the DLM taught the material. Once we remove duplicated material from this article we can decide what to do with the remainder. It could stay as a stub or be merged into one or more of the other articles. There's no rush to decide.   Will Beback    talk    03:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)